Subject: Agenda is still incomplete

From: Paul Hoffman / VPNC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:03:31 -0700

Either the agenda for the DC meeting is incomplete, or there are no 
BOFs meeting at all. The latter seems kind of unlikely.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:20:11 -0700

Paul,

I know that Marcia is still working/struggling
to resolve all the conflicts - this has to
do with having allowed schedule and BOF requests to
be made as late as Friday afternoon.

We probably don't all appreciate enough how 
incredibly hard it is to get all the slots
scheduled in a reasonably untangled fashion.

Allison

---

From: "Vach Kompella" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:28:23 -0700

Isn't the generalized scheduling problem akin to the knapsack problem
which is NP-complete :-)

-Vach 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Allison Mankin
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:20 AM
> To: Paul Hoffman / VPNC
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Agenda is still incomplete 
> 
> 
> Paul,
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 12:45:47 -0700

>be made as late as Friday afternoon.

I don't understand why we need to keep the window
for slot requests open so long.  This is a big burden
on Marcia, and all the people who need to make travel
plans based on actual meeting dates.  Why is the process
optimized for indecisive and/or slow WG or BOF Chairs?

According to this WEB page, 
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_61.html
the scheduling cut-off was Oct. 25 at 5pm ET.

That's less than 14 days from the start of the conference,
and doesn't include the time to finalize the agenda.
It would really help if the final agenda was available
14 days before the conference begins.  Just push back
the scheduling deadline two weeks somehow.

>scheduled in a reasonably untangled fashion.

thanks,
Andy

---

From: Allison Mankin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:02:26 -0700

Andy,

> optimized for indecisive and/or slow WG or BOF Chairs?

You have many points.  Some of this is about BOF approval,
rather than about indecisiveness or slowness.  Note too that 99%
of the requests have been in a long time,  but the agenda is just 
very hard to reconcile, so please don't assume that it's so MUCH because 
of the late requests.  But, we've had a late date for BOF and WG scheduling
for a long time, and I think this has been due to interest in this
flexibility by the chairs/community.  It's probably worth hearing if
people want this still.

I'm leaving off the [email-masked] email address.  We can summarize
to the Secretariat after a chairs/IESG discussion.

Also people should not send more mail to ietf-action
at this point unless it's urgent, since it generates a ticket.

Allison

---

From: "T.J.Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:14:26 -0700

> the scheduling deadline two weeks somehow.

Or else, set an earlier deadline for conflict resolution, and if WGs 
schedule meetings after the conflict cut-off, but before the final 
deadline (14 days before), they simply get any time slot which is 
available..

-TJ

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 16:32:30 -0400

>>>>> "Andy" == Andy Bierman <[email-masked]> writes:

    Andy> At 11:20 AM 10/27/2004, Allison Mankin wrote:
    >> Paul,
    >> 
    >> I know that Marcia is still working/struggling to resolve all
    >> the conflicts - this has to do with having allowed schedule and
    >> BOF requests to be made as late as Friday afternoon.

    Andy> I don't understand why we need to keep the window for slot
    Andy> requests open so long.  This is a big burden on Marcia, and
    Andy> all the people who need to make travel plans based on actual
    Andy> meeting dates.  Why is the process optimized for indecisive
    Andy> and/or slow WG or BOF Chairs?

We had this discussion for IETf 60 as well.  My impression was that
the consensus was not to change things.

Personally I value the flexibility to deal with changing scheduling to
meet emerging issues that pop up before the meeting.  I think this is
an important flexibility.

--Sam

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 13:35:34 +0200

My current plan is to discuss this after the IETF, and my tentative 
proposed conclusion is that the deadline for the March IETF meeting will be 
at least one month before the meeting.

When the subject was raised last, I believe the time remaining before this 
meeting was short enough that I felt we couldn't change it on that short 
notice.

                   Harald