[rgchairs] Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Thu, 14 July 2005 18:40 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt8dg-0005t5-8f; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:40:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt8df-0005t0-0M for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:40:51 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA07910 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:40:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate2.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.135]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dt96H-00064E-NC for rgchairs@irtf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:10:28 -0400
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate2.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j6EIeYSk356982 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 18:40:34 GMT
Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j6EIeYKN225892 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:40:34 +0100
Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6EIeYJJ014052 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:40:34 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6EIeXaE014049; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 19:40:33 +0100
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-220-52.de.ibm.com [9.146.220.52]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA60160; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:40:32 +0200
Message-ID: <42D6B19E.3090201@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:40:30 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D6CE8FE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> <E4A1E5F3-EDB0-4CD2-B752-54C92B582E9E@hxr.us> <42D6173A.5030801@zurich.ibm.com> <5F4DCCAB-ACF6-4267-9CA8-B59F2C88E408@hxr.us>
In-Reply-To: <5F4DCCAB-ACF6-4267-9CA8-B59F2C88E408@hxr.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b7b9551d71acde901886cc48bfc088a6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: wgchairs@ietf.org, rgchairs@irtf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org
Subject: [rgchairs] Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT
X-BeenThere: rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <rgchairs.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:rgchairs@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Andrew Newton wrote:
> 
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>>> The simple fact of the matter is that many people have limited  time  
>>> and limited budget.  And some people have little choice  regarding  
>>> airline schedules, either they take the 11:00am flight  on Friday or  
>>> they wait an entire extra day for the 11:00am flight  on Saturday.   
>>> And when meetings are held in places like Paris,  some people are  
>>> under considerable pressure not to give the  appearance of a  
>>> boondoggle.
>>>
>>
>> For those of us who routinely work 6 full days at the IETF (inlcuding
>> all day Sunday and all day Friday) the notion that it could be
>> viewed as a boondoggle is, well, bizarre.
> 
> 
> I'm sure it is.  But it isn't your perception that is at issue here.

I have to get my travel approved too, you know, and I often have
to help colleagues get their travel approved. And including Friday
is much more a matter of personal (in)convenience than a question
of an extra day's per diem.

> 
>>> There are a host of real world issues many participants  must  
>>> grapple with, and telling them that they should be more devoted   to 
>>> the IETF is not helpful.
>>>
>>
>> This is true. But with 120 WGs, plus BOFs and research groups,  competing
>> for slots, we objectively need the full week.
>>
>>> As for scheduling, I'd rather see the extra plenary session  
>>> abandoned  and have that time dedicated for more working group and  
>>> bof slots.
>>>
>>
>> We've tried that. It doesn't work. We really need the time to discuss
>> both operational and technical issues with the community as a whole.
> 
> 
> If we truly need the whole week, then Friday's should be scheduled  with 
> sessions all day.

For people who are in their own country or region, that probably would
prevent them getting home Friday night. For people who have to cross the
ocean, it would be fine, I agree.

> 
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Thomas Heide clausen wrote:
> 
>> Seeing as about 90% of the important IETF-meeting-work is hallway  and 
>> bar discussions...
> 
> 
> If this is true, then this is another reason why the extra plenary  
> should be scuttled.  It would give people more collaborative working  time.

That leads me to a reductio ad absurdum argument that we should also
abolish WG meetings.

> 
> On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:36 PM, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> 
>> IETF meetings are not mandatory for people to attend; if attending  
>> meetings
>> are problematic or subject to intense scrutiny by someone's travel  
>> department,
>> then they can just particpate on the mailing list.  There are  plenty 
>> of people
>> who do this already.
> 
> 
> Here's what seem people think about IETF meetings (read item #1):
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05193.html

Arguing from the MARID experience or against an Experimental RFC doesn't
make your case, IMHO.

    Brian



_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs