Re: IETF 111 Preliminary Agenda

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sun, 27 June 2021 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1A03A1062 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 08:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nna-z_9y0LOq for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 08:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF99B3A105E for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 08:03:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD12238A12; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:04:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gaUu2DYCvAdh; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB5E38A06; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:04:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2E5904; Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:02:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Eric Vyncke \(evyncke\)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
cc: "Rob Wilton \(rwilton\)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: IETF 111 Preliminary Agenda
In-Reply-To: <C22C6D2A-49FF-4C5B-BD62-6C28726E7D03@cisco.com>
References: <162465090423.3801.432976783697190400@ietfa.amsl.com> <8023.1624654313@localhost> <C22C6D2A-49FF-4C5B-BD62-6C28726E7D03@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 11:02:55 -0400
Message-ID: <32405.1624806175@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/8bIO5iTAxS20dTktusGcV20XH9Q>
X-BeenThere: wgchairs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wgchairs/>
List-Post: <mailto:wgchairs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wgchairs>, <mailto:wgchairs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 15:03:08 -0000

Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com> 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 <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide