Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda

"Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com> Sun, 18 October 2020 13:17 UTC

Return-Path: <agmalis@gmail.com>
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 84DDE3A0C17 for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 06:17:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 tYpDxFixV5pU for <wgchairs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 06:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D02613A0C16 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 06:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id h19so4580054qtq.4 for <wgchairs@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 06:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NU4eSG5KnOCt9V2/hZPTvcbNsOm+FUiJETTFkDewLc8=; b=MtNSW9QbDqiS+WxLTcDQQ2G0WJb4TudRXE0sGmQlNupWcR1T2DTe6XirpcIp4HW79p YHXX8ejrfxmuNhY4KY9W4BCcZGqrjOxdORRScUleP1dSD/5UIuQyWumYuvNdUo3F3mbH DaYWbIv5IAYxHEMwV4l6+N9yQn0PT8Vk6dlkryKoDhbUB+NSutyd/us3aJ6gsS/RaxtV 3+9Yia+JB8BEBax4e2z+4oZ9U5K7LBAjCO2jnE2P/Kf/K0MQqHnbNDAMiqfXSmnbPBjw dJTeX9LjKva3js9mBPvKs5V2kX26kfNVf+61OGVYYlxVtyz/IliZrXEZvIZfieNv0iVw PAGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NU4eSG5KnOCt9V2/hZPTvcbNsOm+FUiJETTFkDewLc8=; b=EkIkLC1gm5MDJoUESPjoJocx8teDdnrn1zbZw7FgGEEH1tDqbyk5ABlA+dCjsd+kk5 ri0LAhbP5fhRvqixNfuCWxkGSNdkyblm6lZW4MziSIq9rWwlyXTYmmpxLnR8JOvJ6gN2 sT7pZmUvlgNpFuu10VwHueQaK8soLjPDu7QqC6idKXWbqp+n46Zn2hX/dz8afZE5uvLM n9mZt1NayX2FroTuOeBO2KYw1xREihb2klIfONs/w6EL5cqn/HT/IYJ/QVNDzD2jINPs SGqNmArs2JOmLkv9ItnLJ7lFweV1OvnHg2svC4bbwmiENBbcDeVeAa8stTtgcpgp+6nf G/SQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533qh1TdVl0TLfj7d8AA/E2VwjviJEG7mfzaUM40daazH9XJHj5Q O3xvQQNicIGJv7OCKV40De9Yxmp8Gc4Zzc4tnY8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzM+WLDhr10Q5da8M+uBXtj7BUZ72E/IpUbFpsNnosldXTnlii02/cudkPIH/+5yyWECgqlA4L+tIdpm+y2S+U=
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:6047:: with SMTP id k7mr11096089qtm.60.1603027022702; Sun, 18 Oct 2020 06:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160288855079.14008.13967692974159638979@ietfa.amsl.com> <30344.1602894208@localhost> <FD995870-E9C6-4099-93AF-253F0A11F56B@tzi.org> <CADaq8jcKK5kUvU3v7+6gEaeqjqxtw-Bii5is_hoq1ugogCoWPg@mail.gmail.com> <20201017193610.GA39170@kduck.mit.edu> <CADaq8je4nFVKkGw3X+Yo53N1xaXrgNRvOw4ZaNA0mT3dsDi-kQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADaq8je4nFVKkGw3X+Yo53N1xaXrgNRvOw4ZaNA0mT3dsDi-kQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Andrew G. Malis" <agmalis@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2020 09:16:51 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA=duU3KwrKnT4tdkap6raiu3pTGRcGz0miJMSFmTPF-bg4wrA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: IETF 109 Preliminary Agenda
To: David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000040eab105b1f1d091"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wgchairs/eEPdsPr6pfYEFTo7J6LmlRGmdNU>
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, 18 Oct 2020 13:17:06 -0000

David,

Speaking as another person in the upcoming midnight-6 AM zone ....

Think about how the folks in Asia feel when we schedule a virtual meeting
for our daylight hours. It's convenient for us, but not for them. We do
1+1+1 for a reason - to spread the pain. It's only fair. And to your other
point, the survey results were very clear that people prefer a shorter day
(6 hours) for the online IETF meetings.

You talked about turning your life upside down to attend the meeting - if
the meeting had actually been in Bangkok, then you would have had two 20+
hour bouts of travel going and coming, and a week away from home. At least
this way, you can still sleep in your own bed. If you don't want to become
nocturnal for the entire week, then pick and choose which sessions are most
important to you and set your alarm.

Cheers,
Andy


On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 6:34 AM David Noveck <davenoveck@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020, 3:36 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 07:33:09AM -0400, David Noveck wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 16, 2020, 8:34 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 2020-10-17, at 02:23, Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > It appears that session are scheduled starting at 05:00 UTC, which
>> would
>> > > be
>> > > > 12:00(noon) Bangkok time.   It's really as if this meeting was being
>> > > held in Madrid.
>> > >
>> > > I don’t think you are aware when Spanish people tend to get up :-)
>> > >
>> >
>> > Fair enough but I don't know when people in Bangkok typically get up and
>> > I'm not sure it is really relevant.  Typically on-site meetings start at
>> > 10am local time and go on to 5:30, creating a 7.5-hour window for
>> meeting
>> > sessions.
>> >
>> > Given that this is a virtual meeting,  it would make sense to widen
>> those
>> > windows to allow some amelioration of the problems that this creates for
>> > some time zones, in this case, for those in the Americas.  Instead, the
>> > window has been shortened to six hours and I'm not sure why.
>>
>> Could you expound a bit on why you think widening the block of time in
>> which sessions occur would be helpful?
>
>
> First of all, given that the current block (midnight to 6AM) was
> unworkable for me, I was looking to provide options that would allow us to
> schedule an nfsv4wg meeting during IETF.
>
> It never occurred to me that there were people who would attend the entire
> 12Am-6Am meeting and had no expectation of people attending an expanded
> version of that.  It now appears that there are such people but I expect
> there will be very few.
>
> IIRC we have survey results showing
>> that in a virtual format even the 7.5-hour window is too long to be
>> practical, and having a longer window is going to push more of the session
>> timeslots into times that are quite painful for more participant
>> timezones.
>> My understanding was that the idea of having a consolidated virtual IETF
>> was to enable the cross-polination that occurs at in-person IETF meetings
>> where most participants are attending sessions in most of the timeslots.
>>
>
> If that is the goal, it does not appear to be realizable for those in the
> Americas given the current ICT session times, except for a small group
> willing to turn their lives upside down to attend the meeting. Although
> these times were not chosen to make this difficult, if you were trying to
> do exclude us, it would be hard to pick a more forbidding time slot.
>
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ben
>>
>