Subject: Guidelines for IETF 111 session requests

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:32:51 +0300

Hi,

the IESG and the IRTF Chair believe there is value for most working and research
groups to have a session during IETF meetings, to encourage interchange of ideas
with the broadest possible audience.

While we would love to be able to give every WG all the time that they’d need,
we have very clear feedback that a remote meeting that extends beyond five days
or six hours per day is challenging for participants. This means that there is
less meeting time available during remote meetings than during in-person
meetings.

While more meeting time can be added by going beyond eight simultaneous tracks,
this increases the potential for conflicts when sessions are scheduled in the
same slot. IETF 110 was scheduled with nine parallel tracks, and meeting
feedback indicated that the community noticed an increase in conflicts.

In light of this tension, and in preparation for IETF 111 as a likely remote
meeting, we ask that you consider the following guidelines as you decide how to
make your session requests for IETF 111, which will become possible on April 26:

    * If your WG or RG needs more than two hours of meeting time, please
      consider structuring the agenda so that work items that benefit most from
      broad community exposure (e.g., new work, rechartering, adoption calls)
      take place in a single session at IETF 111, and schedule interim meetings
      for all other work items. Note that you are allowed to schedule interim
      meetings for the week after IETF meetings but not the week before, nor
      during, the IETF meeting week.

    * Requests for more than two hours of total meeting time are discouraged. In
      special cases, you may request more than two hours of meeting time, but we
      will likely request a rationale, and scheduling pressure may still make it
      impossible to grant any additional meeting slots.

    * If you request a single two-hour session, we encourage you to mention in
      the comments of the session request if it’s OK to split the time into two
      separate 1-hour sessions. This substantially increases the scheduling
      degrees of freedom to reduce conflicts.

    * We also request you to carefully review your list of conflicts, instead of
      simply copying the previous meeting’s list. Inaccurate conflict reporting
      creates real conflicts.

    * Finally, as always, please try your best to estimate the meeting time your
      WG will need, because requesting more time than needed increases agenda
      pressure.

Lars Eggert
IETF Chair (on behalf of the IESG)

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:43:18 -0400

> simply copying the previous meeting’s list. Inaccurate conflict reporting

A major source of challenge has been how to avoid BOFs, particularly unknown
BOFs. (i.e., ones we don't yet know about!)
Can you offer more guidance here?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 20:37:56 +0300

Hi,

> Can you offer more guidance here?

what I have done for my WGs in the past is use the free-form field to say things like "avoid conflicts with BOFs in the FOOBAR area".

Thanks,
Lars