Re: IETF 111 Preliminary Agenda

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > Having interest in 36 WG (if I counted them correctly) and having only
    > 5 days of meeting with 3 slots per day, i.e., 15 slots => you are
    > doomed to have conflict of course ;-)

Yes, doomed.  I've only just finished watching all the youtube for conflicts
from IETF110.

Perhaps you remember me suggesting that WGs should each start with 1x 1hr
slot, and then negotiate for more time on a basis that conflicts will be
ignored?  If all five days were like Thursday, then there would be 20 slots.

It's not 36 WGs, but about 26, as there are some repeats like RATS.

There are two "*dispatch" groups included, plus IOTOPS, as well as some BOFs.
Do I care about ohttp?  probably not enough to go to the BOF, but I'm also
starting to fall into the "I object" camp.  It's one of the few places I have
no conflict though.

Also, the IESG has preferred to make more WGs with smaller focuses.

There is a scheduling impact of doing that.  I also think that we may have
reached the bottom of the well of available WG chairs.
A number of WGs that I participate in are little more than large design
teams.

    > A big constrain is the 6 hours per day when being remote.

Yeah. I have written lots in SHMOO about this, including a draft that wasn't
well received.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide