Subject: Re: Survey shows.... (RE: Fridays (RE: 60th IETF - DRAFT Agenda))

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 08:06:26 -0700

--On 31. juli 2004 10:25 -0700 Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 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.

This seems to me like it could be a reasonable thing to do. It does not 
change the number of working group slots.
BTW: I don't think we'll go on having 2 plenaries forever. Just until we 
finish changing stuff around.....?
>
> 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.

That seems not unreasonable to me too.
I have a higher level problem:
With the number of WGs we have now, if they all decide to meet, we WILL 
have a very crowded IETF meeting. (someone should count the number of 
2-slot WGs btw - I've had it suggested that they contribute a lot to the 
crowding, but I don't know...)

Adding one slot adds just one slot - a very small percentage increase.
Where and when should we think about OTHER formats for getting together to 
get IETF work done?

                        Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 19:07:01 +0200

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
...
> finish changing stuff around.....?

I don't agree. We used to have one plenary, and we switched to two
(originally one IESG and one IAB) because we were never having
enough time for real technical/architectural stuff in plenary.

I would prefer to hope than once the admin changes are agreed,
we can revert to having enough plenary time to discuss real stuff...

...
> Where and when should we think about OTHER formats for getting together 
> to get IETF work done?

I think there is insufficient use of interim meetings. They can accelerate
progress significantly, and relieve pressure on the schedule during IETF
weeks.

<discussion deflector>Properly conducted interim meetings do not damage
the open process and the rough consensus doctrine.</discussion deflector>

    Brian

---

From: Mark Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2004 10:57:12 -0400

> Where and when should we think about OTHER formats for getting
> together to get IETF work done?

I absolutely agree that adding one slot (Tue night, Fri afternoon, Sun
afternoon, ...) doesn't help.  If we really want to help then we need to
do something like adding several Fri sessions and a Tue session.  Or, we
have to (somehow) reduce the work we try to do.  Or, we have to use
traditional interim meetings.  Or, we have to get a bit more creative...
An interim meeting for the *6* groups?  (One could think about combining
interim WG meetings to overcome the "we don't really have enough to talk
about to justify travel, logistics, etc." problem.  I.e., I might not
travel to one particular interim meeting, but if I could attend a few
then I'd be more willing to expend the time and bucks.)

It seems doubtful that an RFC can re-define the length of a week in a
practical way.  So, it would seem that some creative thinking is needed.

allman

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

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 01:48:04 +1000

non-US attendees are typically loosing all or part of both weekends to do a full
IETF attendance.

If we shift to mid-week to mid-week run, we'd get:

	1) everyone looses only one, but exactly one, weekend

	2) hotel rates drop significantly for weekend residence so for
	   people doing only the middle of the meeting, its cheaper

	3) flights midweek are less crowded. MUCH nicer experience coming
	   and going compared to friday flyin or flyout

how about it?

-George

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 01:13:20 +0300 (EEST)

Hi,

> then I'd be more willing to expend the time and bucks.)

Good point.  The idea of "topical" interim meetings -- not just one WG
-- could be worth exploring if there are multiple WGs close enough to
each other which could belong together.  2-4 WGs could still achieve
something, over 2-3 days or so.

I certainly have a problem justifying (not just to the company, but
also to myself :) going to focused meetings like an interim meeting.  
This could help in mitigating this.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings