[rgchairs] Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT

Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us> Thu, 14 July 2005 15:17 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt5SW-0000ZR-8a; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:17:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dt5SU-0000Z0-85 for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:17:06 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21063 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:17:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zak.hxr.us ([] helo=zak.ecotroph.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dt5v4-0006O8-0j for rgchairs@irtf.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:46:41 -0400
Received: from [] ([::ffff:]) (AUTH: PLAIN anewton, SSL: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-SHA) by zak.ecotroph.net with esmtp; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:16:58 -0400 id 00117D02.42D681EA.00003192
In-Reply-To: <42D6173A.5030801@zurich.ibm.com>
References: <1AA39B75171A7144A73216AED1D7478D6CE8FE@esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com> <E4A1E5F3-EDB0-4CD2-B752-54C92B582E9E@hxr.us> <42D6173A.5030801@zurich.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5F4DCCAB-ACF6-4267-9CA8-B59F2C88E408@hxr.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:16:57 -0400
To: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.730)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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

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.

>> 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.

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  

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):


Rgchairs mailing list