Subject: RE: Transport conflicts (Was: 63rd IETF - DRAFT Agenda)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 07:01:06 +0300

> At 1:19 AM +0200 7/21/05, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >It may be worth thinking about, but as has been pointed out, if the subject
> >matter of two WGs clashes, juggling the Areas will do nothing to reduce
> >agenda clashes.
> 
> While this seems logical, it actually isn't correct...
> 
> One of the criteria used in scheduling is that an AD should be able 
> to go to all of the WGs for which he/she is the responsible AD 
> (assuming they will fit in the available slots).  Also, both ADs from 
> an area will typically attend their own area meeting and any BOFs in 
> their area. This means that related WGs within an area are unlikely 
> to conflict with each other (because they will often have the same 
> AD) and that there will typically be no more than one or two WGs from 
> the same area that are meeting at the same time.
> 
> So, if there are 5 WGs in the IETF that are related, they all want a 
> 2 hours slot, and they are all in the same area with the same 
> responsible AD, the AD/area scheduling constraints will be aligned 
> with the desire for those groups not to overlap, and they probably 
> won't.
> 
> If those five groups are spread across three different areas with 
> three different ADs, then it is possible that up to three of them 
> will be scheduled opposite each other (unless folks explicitly 
> request otherwise), especially if the ADs involved all state that 
> they want to attend an overlapping set of other meetings (such 
> general area groups, an open IAB meeting or particular BOFs).

I tend to agree with Margaret on this.  Conflicts are even common when ADs also 
chair WGs. What I'd like to see is three things:

1) Earlier WG / BOF scheduling requests cut-off date
2) Earlier publication of the draft agenda
3) enforced rules about last minute scheduling changes.

I think the rules should be:
1) WG chairs can request slot swaps if they have unavoidable chairing conflicts
2) ADs can request slot swaps if they have unavoidable AD conflicts
3) ADs/WG chairs can request slot swaps if they have unavoidable presentation conflicts
4) Contributors can request slot swaps if they have unavoidable presentation conflicts

We want to avoid people having to be in two places at once, but at the present
size of the IEFG, there will always be conflicts.  I've had many conflicts in
the past and still do at this IETF, but I've generally been able to line-up a
co-contributor (or partner in crime) to discuss a draft when I've had to be
chairing a meeting.

John

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:15:21 +0200

[email-masked] wrote:
> chair WGs. 

I certainly agree that slightly reducing the constraints due to ADs being
unable to be in two places at once will help, but is not a fix, because
there is no fix. The problem is simply overconstrained, and we have to
accept that.

> What I'd like to see is three things:
> 

We've edged it earlier over the years. But there's a limit to that, which is
allowing enough time after the previous meeting for work to be done to the
point where agenda planning is realistically possible.

> 2) Earlier publication of the draft agenda

That comes a more or less fixed time after the cut-off date.

> 4) Contributors can request slot swaps if they have unavoidable presentation conflicts

Certainly those are valid.

  5) Participants have listening conflicts
is one we can't hope to fix

  6) "I've already booked my flights"
is one we really can't deal with

> co-contributor (or partner in crime) to discuss a draft when I've had to be

Yes. Actually there is *always* a solution, however bad things seem to be.

    Brian

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:26:30 +0900

> That comes a more or less fixed time after the cut-off date.

IMHO, having a draft agenda has nothing to do with the I-D cut-off date.
I failt to see the relation between the 2.

A WG should know fearly ahead of time of the meeting that he must meet,
and a rough estimation of the time needed. If it doesn't meet it's
probably easier to deal with cancellation from an agenda making point of
view.

Regarding the WG agendas themselves, draft WG agendas must mention the
topics to be discussed, and if a draft doesn't make it, the topic will
be discussed anyway if it is important for the WG progress, and if it is
not important, the prospective I-D authors may feel more pressure to
publish their draft by the cut-off date.  

So, my point is that the IETF agenda should be decided earlier, and that
WG should have a draft agenda ahead of time (the WG agenda also helps
IETFers to figure out if they should attend the IETF, which WGs, and if
that would cause conflicts).

Thierry

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:29:51 +0200

> I failt to see the relation between the 2.

I meant the scheduling cut-off date, sorry about the lack of precision.
> probably easier to deal with cancellation from an agenda making point of

I think you're underestimating the impact of the feedback loops involved.
Despite what I just said, making the scheduling cut-off earlier
*would* impact the date by which I-Ds need to be completed, because of
the close interaction between WG agenda planning and I-D production.

> be discussed anyway if it is important for the WG progress, 

But by definition, there is no progress if there isn't a draft or a
revised draft. There's simply nothing to discuss in a constructive way.

> and if it is

I believe that due to the above mentioned feedback loop, if we push the
agenda cut-off date 2 weeks earlier, we will compress the time available to
do new work between IETF meetings to about 11 weeks on average, compared
to 13 weeks today. That's an 8% reduction, which seems quite significant.

     Brian

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:00:01 +0900

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:29:51 +0200

-- 
Thierry Ernst, PhD
WIDE, Jun Murai Lab., Keio University, Japan
Nautilus6 Chair: http://www.nautilus6.org
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
T:+81-44-580-1600 F:+81-44-580-1437
--

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 14:31:10 +0900

[Sorry, I meant to sent the following mail to WGchairs, not the reply-to
you just received]

Dear Brian,

> > A WG should know fearly ahead of time of the meeting that he must
> > meet, and a rough estimation of the time needed. If it doesn't meet
> > it's probably easier to deal with cancellation from an agenda making
> > point of view.
> 

Agree that my suggestion doesn't take such parameter into consideration
- I leave that to the people with such constraints to assess if my
proposition is reasonable or not. 

> Despite what I just said, making the scheduling cut-off
> earlier*would* impact the date by which I-Ds need to be completed,
> because of the close interaction between WG agenda planning and I-D
> production.

This is precisely what I'm arguing. More below.

> > Regarding the WG agendas themselves, draft WG agendas must mention
> > the topics to be discussed, and if a draft doesn't make it, the
> > topic will be discussed anyway if it is important for the WG
> > progress, 
> 

No, this is not a general rule. 

For instance, we have now more often web pages where a issues on a
particular draft are listed, with the reason why the issue is being
raised, and the resolution in a draft draft. A new version of the draft
cannot always be published, and would even be meaningless if known
issues are not addressed in the revision. In such an instance, it's
perfectly reasonable that the draft is not posted.

Also, there many discussions on the ML that should be summarized in a
proper meeting, or reports of a DT, and no draft is necessarily attached
to such discussions. 

Finaly, as I wrote in my previous mail, a draft WG agenda should be seen
as what it just is - a draft - and having a slot listed there doesn't
ensure actual slot at the meeting if authors have failed to produce the
said draft or document by the deadline.

So, to me both I-D cutoff date and WG agenda are 2 different things, and
I maintain **draft** WG agendas should be sent ahead of time. We can
even enforce that a WG can only request to meet once it has a **draft**
WG agenda, 6 weeks at least before the IETF meeting.

> > So, my point is that the IETF agenda should be decided earlier, and
> > that WG should have a draft agenda ahead of time (the WG agenda also
> > helps IETFers to figure out if they should attend the IETF, which
> > WGs, and if that would cause conflicts).
> 
> I believe that due to the above mentioned feedback loop, if we push
> the agenda cut-off date 2 weeks earlier, we will compress the time
> available to do new work between IETF meetings to about 11 weeks on
> average, compared to 13 weeks today. That's an 8% reduction, which
> seems quite significant.

I would put this in an other perspective: many WGs don't do much
(visible) work during some time interval between the meetings; having
**draft** (I insist on the word "draft") WG agendas ahead of time may
well help people to compress their inactive time.

This said, there is a lot of non visible work which is done, so I would
consider this less an issue than it just appears.

Thierry