Subject: RE: Fridays (RE: 60th IETF - DRAFT Agenda)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:17:27 +0300

Margaret,

> At 10:10 AM -0700 7/19/04, bill wrote:
> >Can we close scheduling 5 weeks prior to the IETF Meeting (lets say 5
> >weeks and a Friday for scheduling reequests)
> 
> Do the people who are suggesting an early cut-off also think that the 
> early cut-off should apply to BOF approvals?

Why wouldn't it? Many BoFs are planned quite early - you need to submit
drafts, etc., so why not?

John

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:39:23 -0700

> drafts, etc., so why not?

The issue isn't the ones that are planned early, it's the ones that 
aren't.  I think it's desirable but not necessary to get BoFs on the 
agenda early.  I'd rather have a late BoF addition than a four month 
delay due to missing the cutoff.  BoFs, unlike working groups, are less 
predictable.  For that matter working groups occasionally have last 
minute issues that come up requiring additional agenda time.  So, if we 
do go to an earlier scheduling process, it would be good to have hooks 
in it that allow for exceptions (heavy-weight enough to prevent abuse, 
I suppose).

--aaron

---

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:35:39 -0700

[[ Cc: list trimmed ]]

At 8:39 PM -0700 7/19/04, Aaron Falk wrote:
>delay due to missing the cutoff.  BoFs, unlike working groups, are 
>less predictable.

Fully agree. And it is OK to add BOFs after the agenda is "finalized" 
as long as adding them does not cause any movements. Far fewer people 
will change travel plans for a BOF that was added late than for a WG 
that was added or moved. Further, BOFs tend to land in the Tuesday 
afternoon slot, when attendance is highest anyway.

>   For that matter working groups occasionally have last minute 
>issues that come up requiring additional agenda time.

That seems much rarer, fortunately.

>   So, if we do go to an earlier scheduling process, it would be good 
>to have hooks in it that allow for exceptions (heavy-weight enough 
>to prevent abuse, I suppose).

Indeed.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 13:40:57 -0400

> delay due to missing the cutoff.

Exactly.  The IETF takes long enough to do things without adding a
requirement that BoFs require a new and large amount of lead time to get
organized.

allman

--
Mark Allman -- ICIR -- http://www.icir.org/mallman/

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 14:11:16 -0400

>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron Falk <[email-masked]> writes:

    Aaron> The issue isn't the ones that are planned early, it's the
    Aaron> ones that aren't.  I think it's desirable but not necessary
    Aaron> to get BoFs on the agenda early.  I'd rather have a late
    Aaron> BoF addition than a four month delay due to missing the
    Aaron> cutoff.  BoFs, unlike working groups, are less predictable.
    Aaron> For that matter working groups occasionally have last
    Aaron> minute issues that come up requiring additional agenda
    Aaron> time.  So, if we do go to an earlier scheduling process, it
    Aaron> would be good to have hooks in it that allow for exceptions
    Aaron> (heavy-weight enough to prevent abuse, I suppose).

I've actually been involved in a number of working groups where it was
desirable to schedule late because we weren't sure how much time was
needed.  I think this is valuable and would not like to see it go
away.

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 20:33:25 -0400

> needed.  I think this is valuable and would not like to see it go

It is worth noting that we only have one-hour sessions on Tuesday
afternoons now. We used to have them in the morning too, I
believe. Presumably we don't anymore because there wasn't enough
demand in practice. So I don't know that its worth delaying requests a
long time to try to zero in on an exact the time slot length.

Thomas