Subject: [78attendees] Meeting rooms too small?

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:04:52 +0200

Hi,

I was surprised to see that the meeting room (0.1 London) scheduled
for the 6lowpan meeting is far too small. About 20 people are sitting
outside, where it is very difficult to follow the meeting. Is that a
general problem, or just because 6lowpan is too famous?

Ulrich

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:11:51 -0700

London is not too small, it is RIDICULOUSLY too small.

Hopefully the rest of the week is not like this......

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Ulrich Herberg
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:05 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [78attendees] Meeting rooms too small?

Hi,

Ulrich
_______________________________________________
78attendees mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/78attendees

---

From: Marcia Beaulieu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:20:19 +0200

Dear Ulrich,

Working groups are assigned rooms based on the number of expected attendees.  6lowpan asked for a room to accommodate 70 people, London is set for a little over 80, while that is not a significant number of seats over the requested amount, all the other groups scheduled at this time had asked for rooms accommodating more than 70 people.

Unfortunately, more people than expected showed up for 6lowpan.

Marcia

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:25:00 +0200

Dear Marcia,

(including the 6lowpan chairs in the mail). Thanks for that
explanation. I recommend that for next IETF, 6lowpan chairs ask for a
bigger room that allows all attendees to participate in the meeting
inside the room.

Ulrich

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:25:12 -0700

I don't think London worked for 70 either.   You might want to have a look
into this.    70 is a dangerous number of people in a room that small.
Given there must be over a hundred, it is way past unworkable.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Marcia Beaulieu
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:20 AM
To: Ulrich Herberg
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [78attendees] Meeting rooms too small?

Dear Ulrich,

Working groups are assigned rooms based on the number of expected attendees.
6lowpan asked for a room to accommodate 70 people, London is set for a
little over 80, while that is not a significant number of seats over the
requested amount, all the other groups scheduled at this time had asked for
rooms accommodating more than 70 people.

Marcia

---

From: "Don Sturek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:32:52 -0700

I know folks in London are looking at how many chairs are in the room.  They
got 70 in here by essentially having no aisle between the rows.  This is why
no-one can get to the mike and the reason I believe 70 is not workable.
There is a single aisle in the middle of the room with 6 chairs on either
side where no-one can get to the aisle.

This room should have been used for not more than 40 people.

I don't think it is the 6LowPAN chairs fault for not projecting the right
attendance.

Don

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Don Sturek
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:25 AM
To: 'Marcia Beaulieu'; 'Ulrich Herberg'
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [78attendees] Meeting rooms too small?

Don

-----Original Message-----

Dear Ulrich,

Marcia

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:04:05 +0200

> I don't think it is the 6LowPAN chairs fault for not projecting the right

According to your report, in this case it appears that the issue is more 
about the room size and setup than the prediction. Having said that, 
such predictions are also inherently unreliable. The chairs have no way 
of knowing if a large number of enthusiasts happen to live nearby and 
decide to come for this meeting, for instance.

This suggests that we should not use our time to place blame, but to 
resolve issues as they come  up. In the past when we have run across 
issues like this, the secretariat/meeting site have been really good in 
switching rooms, reconfiguring walls, delivering chairs, etc. Can some 
of that be done for future meetings in the same room, if it appears that 
it really can only support a smaller number of people than we have been 
counting on?

Jari

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:10:27 +0200

Marcia - with London set for 80, it is very difficult for participants to get to the mic.  One small thing that might help would be to provide a wireless mic to pass to participants.  We tried passing the wired mic in London but it creates a lot of noise.

- Ralph

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:14:15 +0200

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Jari Arkko <[email-masked]> wrote:
> about the room size and setup than the prediction. Having said that, such
> predictions are also inherently unreliable. The chairs have no way of
> knowing if a large number of enthusiasts happen to live nearby and decide to
> come for this meeting, for instance.
>
> This suggests that we should not use our time to place blame, but to resolve
> issues as they come  up.

Disclaimer: It was not at all my intention to blame the chairs. :-)

> In the past when we have run across issues like
> this, the secretariat/meeting site have been really good in switching rooms,
> reconfiguring walls, delivering chairs, etc.

In this situation, it would not have helped adding chairs or
reconfiguring walls (I have not seen any walls to reconfigure, and the
room was too crowded to add extra chairs). I briefly talked to Marcia,
and she said that it was not possible to switch rooms on such a short
notice.

I have not counted the chairs in the room, but I agree with Don that
it seems hardly suitable for 70 people.

Ulrich

> Can some of that be done for
> future meetings in the same room, if it appears that it really can only
> support a smaller number of people than we have been counting on?

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:42:21 -0600

We will - we did not expect to be so popular.

	geoff

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:43:49 -0600

PS - of course for Beijing we will ask for a room with seats for 100 and
only 40 will show up. :-)

	geoff

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:46:54 +0200

> only 40 will show up. :-)

That's what typically happens (cf Murphy's law...;-) But sitting in a
half-empty room is better than not being able to attend the meeting.

Ulrich

---

From: Basil Dolmatov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:04:58 +0400

26.07.2010 18:46, Ulrich Herberg пишет:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Geoff Mulligan<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>    
(cf. Parkinson laws) That will lead to requesting by all WGs the largest 
possible chunks of resources (rooms, etc.)
;)

dol@

>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Marcia Beaulieu<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Dear Ulrich,
>>>>

---

From: Aaron Stone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:04:41 -0700

A half-empty room is in fact 100% occupied: IETFefs typically require
2 chairs each; one for self, and the other for laptop, notebooks,
bags, and elbow room while typing. In a pinch, 1.5 chairs/person is
possible, but many will prefer to sit against the wall or stand in the
back rather than pack in so tightly.

Aaron