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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:26:59 +0300

Hi Aaron,

> 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).

Thinking about this, I agree with you, but also remembered that with BoFs,
it isn't just about getting the request in, it is also about getting AD
action to support BoFs.  I still think we should encourage potential
BoFs to get themselves organized early ...

John

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 15:59:31 +0200

(removing IAB from CC line, and changing the subject line again....)

with 85 responses so far, we have a blistering ONE person who admits to 
planning to leave before Thu PM, and THREE people who admit to arriving on 
Monday (none later).

Two possible conclusions to draw:

- The number of people not staying the whole week is in the single-digit 
percent range
- Those who aren't staying the whole week don't take surveys....

It was sure different from what I had imagined based on the debate!

                       Harald

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 09:35:32 -0700

Harald-

I also see about a third of contributors have conflicts in groups they 
participate in.  IMO, this is a sign that our scheduling algorithm 
isn't, um, optimum.

I can think of two possible solutions:

- Wg chairs could be more agressive in polling mailing lists for wgs to 
avoid.

- Develop an online tool which allowed contributors to enter (perhaps 
when registering) the working groups they wanted to avoid, a weighting 
was applied (favoring ADs, wgchairs, authors, etc), and a minimum 
conflict schedule calculated.  (I appreciate that except for the piece 
about collecting preferences when registering, this is what happens 
manually today.)

--aaron

On Jul 23, 2004, at 6:59 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> with 85 responses so far, we have a blistering ONE person who admits 
> to planning to leave before Thu PM, and THREE people who admit to 
> arriving on Monday (none later).
>
> - The number of people not staying the whole week is in the 
> single-digit percent range

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:26:32 -0700

Harald,

>It was sure different from what I had imagined based on the debate!

Me too.  I conclude that more people will participate in this type of 
survey than will send mail to the IETF list.  We should consider this as 
another useful tool for assessing community consensus.

Bob

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:47:29 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Aaron Falk" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Harald Tveit Alvestrand" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 9:35 AM
> Subject: Re: Survey shows.... (RE: Fridays (RE: 60th IETF - DRAFT Agenda))
...
> about collecting preferences when registering, this is what happens
...

Another source of conflict is, ironically, cross-area review.
As a result of reviewing some document (in my case as a
some-time MIB doctor) one can find oneself asked to attend
a session in a WG/area in which one might otherwise have
little interest.  I guess that if this problem affected more
than a few of us, it would be a very good problem to have.  :-)

Randy

---

From: Rob Austein <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:09:49 -0400

I'd be careful about drawing too many conclusions from surveys in
which the range of answers is limited to such a small number of bits.

Eg, at one point someone commented that, based on survey results so
far, scheduling WG sessions for the Sunday before IETF might make more
sense than scheduling on Friday, because so many people were already
there.  Which misses one of the reasons why a not completely trivial
number of people arrive early: various other meetings that are
scheduled at the IETF venue just prior to IETF, to economize on travel
without actually conflicting with any of the IETF sessions.

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 18:31:16 +0200

On 2004-07-23, at 15.59, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> removing IAB from CC line, and changing the subject line again....)
>

...as I am the person who has to leave Thu PM, it's only because of a 
meeting in D.C on Friday, and the fact that I have to be at a wedding 
in Sweden on Saturday.

- - kurtis -

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 10:25:39 -0700

Regarding what we actually want to do about this, there have been 
several suggestions:

- schedule Sunday slots
- schedule Tuesday evening slots
- schedule Friday slots

My 2 cents:

I believe that the current schedule is already ludicrously busy.  
Rather than schedule an additional meeting on Tuesday, I would move one 
of the plenary sessions to Tuesday night and have the social or free 
time on Wednesday night.  I believe this breaks up the week and gives 
recuperation time when it is needed more.

I don't think it is appropriate to schedule additional Sunday sessions. 
  Some folks like to arrive a day early to prepare and will need to 
leave even earlier, but may not be able to justify the extra time away. 
  Many others fly in to arrive on Sunday afternoon or evening.  I 
usually arrive in time for the welcome reception, but occasionally I 
just fly in very late Sunday night.  Sessions on Sunday would be a big 
negative for me personally.

If we move the social/free evening to Wednesday, then I think it is 
appropriate to schedule one additional afternoon session on Friday.

thanks,
-rohan