Subject: Re: REMINDER - 70th IETF - Working Group/BOF Scheduling

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:29:31 -0400

On Wednesday, September 26, 2007 02:57:00 PM -0400 IETF Agenda 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 70th IETF - Vancouver, BC, Canada
> Meeting Dates: December 2-7, 2007
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> We will be accepting scheduling requests for all Working Groups and BOFs
> starting today, Tuesday, September 4, 2007.  The milestones and deadlines
> for scheduling-related activities are as follows:

It would have been really nice if this message had actually been sent on 
September 4, 2007, instead of on September 26, while I was on vacation, 
giving me a grand total of 6 hours to figure out how much meeting time my 
WG will need this time around.

This happened with minutes from the last IETF, as well.  Please go back to 
sending out announcements in a timely manner, instead of merely _dating_ 
them in a timely manner and sending them all out five minutes before the 
cutoff.

-- Jeff

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:00:30 -0700

At 2:29 PM -0400 10/1/07, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
>This happened with minutes from the last IETF, as well.  Please go 
>back to sending out announcements in a timely manner, instead of 
>merely _dating_ them in a timely manner and sending them all out 
>five minutes before the cutoff.

I received the first version of this notice on September 4. YMMV, as 
might your attitude.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:06:29 -0400

Jeff says...
> September 4, 2007, instead of on September 26, while I was on vacation, giving
> me a grand total of 6 hours to figure out how much meeting time my WG will need
> this time around.

It did, Jeff.  My logs show that I received it on 4 Sept, at 21:10 Eastern Time.

Barry

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:17:41 -0400

> WG will need this time around.

OK; a number of people how have told me they got copies, so the problem 
must be at my end.  I'm sorry for getting so upset over this.

-- Jeff

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 11:58:40 -0500

On Oct 1, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> OK; a number of people how have told me they got copies, so the  
> problem must be at my end.  I'm sorry for getting so upset over this.

Well, the real problem is that the September 26 resend of the  
September 4 message said "Starting today, September 4" and didn't  
seem to me to indicate that it was a resend. It looked like the  
message had been stuck in somebody's outbox for three weeks.

It would have been less confusing if it had said "Started September 4  
and closes October 1".

Personally, having already submitted my meeting request based on the  
September 4 message it didn't affect me, but I did wonder a bit when  
I read the September 26 message, so I can see how it confused  
somebody -- especially somebody suffering from post-vacation stress  
disorder ;-).

--
Dean

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 13:56:09 -0500

FWIW -

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/wgchairs/current/msg05388.html

On Oct 1, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:

> It would have been really nice if this message had actually been  
> sent on September 4, 2007, instead of on September 26, while I was  
> on vacation, giving me a grand total of 6 hours to figure out how  
> much meeting time my WG will need this time around.
>