Subject: [RAI] Next IETF meeting: scheduling

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:23:29 +0200

Folks,

as you know, scheduling sessions during this IETF has been a difficult
task (not only in RAI but in the whole IETF). Face-to-face time is a
very useful and very expensive resource and we have to make sure that we
make the best use of it.

We already know how much face-to-face time each WG requested and how
much actual agenda time they got. Additionally, in this IETF WG chairs
(not only in RAI but in all areas) are measuring how much of that time
was actually used (some WGs end their sessions much earlier than expected).

While all these metrics are interesting, we are more interested in how
much time WGs really need in order to discuss open issues (as opposed to
presentations of topics people should have read before the meeting).
The problem is that, traditionally, the chairs estimate how much time is
going to be needed in order to send their agenda requests long before
the meeting. Much later, when the overall IETF agenda is finished, they
prepare their agendas for the meeting. Sometimes, the estimations that
were used to prepare the overall IETF agenda do not correspond to the
actual agendas of the WGs.

So, for the next IETF, we will be requesting WGs to prepare a draft
agenda and an estimation of how much time they need to cover the agenda
before performing the scheduling. We intend to request the draft agendas
one week before the deadline for room requests. While we of course
realize that draft agendas will be based on a rough guess, they will
need to nevertheless be a serious effort at an accurate guess. We also
realize that some agendas will have to be adjusted as we get closer to
the meeting. As usual, agendas should focus on discussing open issues
and not on presenting topics.

Thanks,

Gonzalo

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:30:29 -0500

Gonzalo

I appreciate this note - but also quickly realize how chairs can game 
the system by allowing more presentation time or number of 
presentation topics to fill out what ends up being what it takes to 
get, say a 2 hour timeslot, for example.

The burden will end up falling on the ADs to determine whether the 
time used for presentations was the best use of meeting time, 
regardless of how many presentations were given in a session or how 
long each were.

James

At 07:23 AM 7/29/2010, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
>_______________________________________________
>RAI mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rai

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:36:18 -0500

BTW - I didn't mean to imply anyone was dishonest - but that they 
are advocates for their ideas (i.e., WGs), and if pushed, will go to 
some length to get "their" time for their WG.

James

At 07:30 AM 7/29/2010, James M. Polk wrote:
>Gonzalo
>
>I appreciate this note - but also quickly realize how chairs can 
>game the system by allowing more presentation time or number of

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:42:51 +0200

Hi James,

thanks for your comments. The main idea is to have more accurate
estimations so that the scheduling process can be based on them. From my
experience as a chair, going through the exercise of preparing a draft
agenda allowed me to have a much more accurate idea of how much time my
WG needed.

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:48:04 -0500

Gonzalo

Don't misunderstand me, I think this is a very good thing. But as RAI 
is spinning up more WGs than they are closing, the belief of 
individual ideas seems to be getting such that some may want to do 
"what it takes" to get an effort into the cue to become a WG.

As a chair myself, having more information is always better - and I 
know that. I don't want to discourage anything you suggest here.

James

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:50:54 +0200

29 jul 2010 kl. 14.48 skrev James M. Polk:

> Gonzalo
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, I think this is a very good thing. But as RAI is spinning up more WGs than they are closing, the belief of individual ideas seems to be getting such that some may want to do "what it takes" to get an effort into the cue to become a WG.
> 
> As a chair myself, having more information is always better - and I know that. I don't want to discourage anything you suggest here.

Maybe one could also schedule interim meetings at SIPit events?

/O

---

From: "Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:53:23 -0500

Gonzalo,

Has anyone ever considered just running the RAI as one big meeting with
a series of WG topics?

When one WG is done, start the next WG.  Put less contentious WGs first,
leave contentious ones to end where they may get more time?

Take regularly scheduled mid-morning, lunch, mid-afternoon breaks?

That way you don't waste time due to inability to predict the future.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Gonzalo Camarillo
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:43 AM
To: James Polk (jmpolk)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [RAI] Next IETF meeting: scheduling

Hi James,

Cheers,

Gonzalo

---

From: Gonzalo Camarillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:00:56 +0200

Hi Mike,

thanks for the suggestion. I guess something like this would work for
people following all WGs (it would work for me, for example). However,
people following only a few topics in the area may not like it. Also,
some RAI WGs need to avoid conflicts with WGs outside RAI.

I agree being able to predict the future with complete accuracy would
help with the scheduling ;o)

Thanks,

Gonzalo