RE: IETF 111 Preliminary Agenda

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for raising this.

Having looked at the number of conflicts that you have, and your lack of free sessions, then it seems like having a reasonable degree of conflicts is probably somewhat unavoidable for you.    I think that the only solution that could reasonably work would be to have more sessions available (longer days, or more days), or reduce the amount of time that WGs are allowed to meet during a virtual IETF week.

Even for an in-person meeting, there would only be 2 extra meeting slots (i.e., on the Friday morning, which are often not so well attended), but many of the other slots would be for longer sessions.  Hence, I still think that you would end up with a fair number of conflicts.

It is worth noting that running up to the scheduling for IETF 111, we did encourage WG chairs to try and allocate less time with the aim of avoiding the need of running 9 parallel tracks if possible, which IIRC, reduced the number of sessions by 3, and 14 hours less total meeting time, but this wasn't enough to avoid going to 9 tracks for some sessions.

I appreciate that none of the above helps with your scheduling problem.  Whilst we are trying to cope with the pandemic, then I think that we are just trying to do the best we can, but I do see your feedback as being pertinent when considering possible future online-only meetings when we get back to meeting in person again - a topic for SHMOO.

One final suggestion: Are the conflicts between the WGs listed on the WG scheduling page?  If not, then would it be possible to please follow up with the chairs to see if there are any WG conflicts missing - although it is unclear which of these conflicts are specific to you, and just listing them doesn't fundamentally change the constraints of the scheduling that we are operating under.

It would also be interesting to hear if other IOT focussed participants are also having similar scheduling problems.  Perhaps worth discussing in IOTOPS (or the IOT directorate)?

Thanks,
Rob


> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
> Sent: 25 June 2021 21:52
> To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <[e-mail]>; Working Group Chairs
> <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: IETF 111 Preliminary Agenda
> 
> http://www.sandelman.ca/tmp/ietf111-conflicts2.png
> 
> So, except for Monday first session, where I got nothing, I have conflict on
> every single session.
> I haven't gone back yet to look for any new BOFs that might matter to me,
> like APN.  I just copied my list from the last IETF.
> 
> I'm CC'ing Rob Wilton, because a lot of this is basically the IOT conflict
> list.
> 
> 
> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
> ]     [e-mail]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [
> 
>