Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to accomplish anything on Friday?
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, John Klensin wrote: [snip] * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? Definitely. How aggressively is another question (mainly a function of people's interest in the subject and remaining time, I think); it's all too easy to start endless debates (over and over again) that take the time from something more important. -- Pekka Savola Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
I think two plenary's is a good idea. If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg meetings I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that helps to undermine Friday's status as a real working day. In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary with no adverse impact to the IETF at large.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
* If so, should we continue with IESG on Wednesday and IAB on Thursday, or should we alternate them (or adopt some more radical schedule change -- probably too late for Minneapolis at this point). I like the idea of keeping to the two-plenary schedule at every IETF. * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it Yes!
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Fred == Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fred At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. Fred I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday Fred seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a Fred meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job Fred done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to Fred schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume Fred that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to Fred accomplish anything on Friday? Precisely. There is a strong urge to get the meeting rescheduled from Friday to an earlier day, and if that isn't possible, to compress the earlier meetings. Further, the desire to stay out of Friday causes scheduling conflicts earlier in the week for many that might not otherwise occur. Leaving early means leaving on Thursday afternoon/evening. I personally have never been able to reschedule a flight from late Friday to early Friday - the flights are full. I personally think that it would be nice to have a sign-up page for each WG session in advance. This would help scheduling and room allocations. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
Matt == Matt Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Matt I think devoting Thursday night to a plenary is one factor that Matt helps to undermine Friday's status as a real working day. Matt In most cases, Tuesday noght could have been used for a plenary Matt with no adverse impact to the IETF at large. In particular, the only really important thing for a social event is that there be food and beverage. We provide all of the rest. As such, combining the plenary with a reception-like thing beforehand would work just fine for me. There may be some logistical problems (Sunday's reception usually occurs in the same room as the plenary does). ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
A couple of things happen with Friday meetings. One is, there aren't enough of them. It makes it hard to justify staying the extra day. The other thing is, recently, they've had a habit of scheduling multiple common interest meetings on top of each other, like PKIX and PGP, or two security meetings, or something like that, and yet leaving Friday sparsley populated. I'd rather stay through Friday than miss half of what I went to attend. My point here is that it seems to me we could use Friday's time better, if we have scheduling issues. At 10:40 AM 1/17/2002 +0100, Fred Baker wrote: At 12:43 AM 1/17/2002, Rodney Thayer wrote: If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would help. I'd be curious to know what would define using Friday seriously. We do usually put meetings on Friday which also have a meeting earlier in the week, meaning that if they get their job done earlier they can go home, but it's not like we fail to schedule meetings there. Do you mean the working groups assume that everyone leaves Thursday, and so don't actually plan to accomplish anything on Friday?
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
At 02:04 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the Saturday fare benefit to make it worth considering using Sunday for WG meetings. d/ -- Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
At 01:42 PM 1/16/2002, John Klensin wrote: * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or occasional schedule? The two plenary model is good since it gives us time needed to address the issues. If people want to participate, they need to adjust their schedules to do so. Many of us were a bit surprised by the SLC schedule, but that should not be the case in the future. * Do you have major architectural themes that should be addressed during the next IAB plenary if one is held? Well we have major issues on the Internet these days with the rise of multimedia real-time apps and the even present concerns about NAT and IPv6. It should be clear that the way we viewed NAT and IPv6 a few years ago has changed dramatically. It sure couldn't hurt to revisit some of our positions. * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it better to let people explain their views at whatever length that takes? Yes please control the mike! The same goes for the IESG. The usefulness of the plenary dissipates when people needlessly flog a dead horse on 10 minute rants. People at the mike should bring up their point or argument, then move on. We can always bring up our gripes in more detail on the IETF email list.
Re: Plenaries at IETF 53
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Rodney == Rodney Thayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rodney I think two plenary's is a good idea. Rodney If we seriously used the time on friday, thus making thursday Rodney night more legitmate to schedule staying in town, that would Rodney help. also would mitigate the horrible double booking of wg Rodney meetings (I know, that's off topic...) I concur with both thoughts. Frequently for me I get triple booked for at least one session on Monday, and do nothing for at least one other day. I would remove the second plenary only if it were going to result in there being fewer tracks of meetings for the rest of the week. Use Friday morning as well. ] ON HUMILITY: to err is human. To moo, bovine. | firewalls [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[ ] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[ ] panic(Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy); [ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 Comment: Finger me for keys iQCVAwUBPEb7hIqHRg3pndX9AQGl2gP/aNoP20sk9Lo+WIVY1vXvNxfihQAeIAj7 CnoDqjEHtsTz4mEwsSrEH4w+5B3/UXiDMen8vxxqT4MMLZFORw8W4sX4vgFNg+pz GVsIQuY5fn0eYfgAwzJc4JgvIW56mE/nHw+SdbYgMf0UIqVwDDvLIL4ewl9zXNMY KBIdUVrdLLg= =esok -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 11:34:35AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: At 02:04 PM 1/17/2002 -0500, Jeffrey Altman wrote: Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the Saturday fare benefit to make it worth considering using Sunday for WG meetings. But most of those who do this also use Sunday to have pre-IETF meetings. I've known several folks who have Sunday booked solid with business/design-team/etc meetings weeks before the actual IETF begins. I would personally prefer extending into Friday... -MM -- Michael Mealling| Vote Libertarian! | urn:pin:1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | http://www.neonym.net
RE: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Jeffrey Altman wrote: Just to add my experience. I find that in order to get better airline rates I am forced to travel into town on Saturday. So I'm in town on Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. The problem with Friday is that after having spent a week at IETF I really want to either get back home or to my weekend destination at a reasonable hour. That usually means getting on a plane by 11am if not earlier. So regardless of how important the Friday meeting is, I probably won't be attending it. I agree with Jeffrey here. I was just looking into booking flights for Minneapolis: Sacramento to Minneapolis, no connections: - Arrive Minneapolis Sunday afternoon, leave friday afternoon: round trip $1049 - Arrive Minneapolis Saturday evening, leave friday morning: round trip $289 SAME AIRLINE (Northwest), same planes. In SLC, the meeting I was in finished early and I was fortunate enough to fly standby and get home reasonably early, but if you have to stay at the hotel until noon, you are going to make it home very late that friday night and be so tired that your saturday is shot. Michel.
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:17:52 PST, Michel Py said: Sacramento to Minneapolis, no connections: - Arrive Minneapolis Sunday afternoon, leave friday afternoon: round trip $1049 - Arrive Minneapolis Saturday evening, leave friday morning: round trip $289 SAME AIRLINE (Northwest), same planes. Out of curiosity, what was the quote for arrive Sat evening, leave Fri morning? This looks like the stay over the weekend price break? Or am I missing something here? msg07276/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Sunday with little to do other than catch up on work that really should have been done before I arrived. So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. This is an interesting suggestion. The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. One can make similar arguments for the later end of the week: We could hold meetings until Friday afternoon (or evening) and leave on Friday evening (or Saturday). But some people do not work on Saturday (or for that matter, on Friday evening). I don't think we should try to choose between those who don't work on Saturday and those who don't work on Sunday. I actually think our scheduling is within epsilon of optimal. Five days (currently Sunday evening - Friday morning) seems to be about as much as we can handle anyway. No matter which day of the week we end on, many people are going to leave a bit early, and the last meeting slot is going to be unpopular. Keith
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
I've known several folks who have Sunday booked solid with business/design-team/etc meetings weeks before the actual IETF begins. I would personally prefer extending into Friday... aol me too /aol randy
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
I actually think our scheduling is within epsilon of optimal. Five days (currently Sunday evening - Friday morning) seems to be about as much as we can handle anyway. No matter which day of the week we end on, many people are going to leave a bit early, and the last meeting slot is going to be unpopular. My conclusion as well. Bob
Re: comments on Friday scheduling, etc.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 02:04 , Jeffrey Altman wrote: I find that in order to get better airline rates I am forced to travel into town on Saturday. So I'm in town on Sunday ... So maybe doing more on Sunday would be a possibility. I believe that (at least for US-homed travellers) the wacky airline pricing means that many many people (not everyone, but surely a whole lot) are travelling on Saturday. The remainder generally arrive some time on Sunday afternoon. The Sunday evening social seems to be regularly well attended. IEPG typically holds its small meeting on the Sunday before IETF, often 10am until 2pm. There have occasionally been IESG or IAB closed working meetings on either Saturday or Sunday. I'm sure there are business meetings on EVERY day/evening of IETF, but that doesn't strike me as a major driver for the IETF week schedule. Doing something on Sunday might create more options. Quite separately, it was true in the past that IETF would have one or more morning plenary meetings (which could be attempted again). - Reception Social might be merged together on Sunday evening. - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings. - Sunday's social might be followed by a short administrative plenary, covering routine topics (e.g. local host/IANA/RFC- Editor/Secretariat updates). - Sunday's social might be followed by one of the plenary meetings, with the routine topics (e.g. IANA/RFC-Editor/local host/Secretariat) covered at a (possibly shorter than usual for modern plenaries) Monday morning plenary meeting. The problem with Friday is that after having spent a week at IETF I really want to either get back home or to my weekend destination at a reasonable hour. That usually means getting on a plane by 11am if not earlier. So regardless of how important the Friday meeting is, I probably won't be attending it. This is true for lots of folks. In particular, US folks that have been forced (by finances) to engage in the Saturday-night-stay to get cheaper airfare are worn out by Thursday evening and usually head home Friday morning. Domestic tranquility at home (and concerns about Sabbath for some) cause many folks to flood out on Friday morning so that they are home before dinner (or Friday local sundown at home). For folks heading out Friday morning at dawn, and there are a whole lot of folks who do roughly that, evening meetings (e.g. IAB plenary in SLC) on Thursday evening are a real problem. In 10+ years of IETF meetings, missing a small number now and again, I've never attended a Friday IETF meeting. Further, I can't imagine ever doing so unless that IETF happened to be local to my home. I did attend a closed IRTF meeting on one Friday after IETF, but that was local to my home. On that occasion, the halls seemed notably empty by 10am Friday. I am afraid the bottom line is ugly. This really really is a zero-sum game. If there are two plenary meetings on different nights, then that removes a night's worth of WG meeting slots from the calendar. We can accept the loss of those WG meeting slots, as one option. Another option would be to re-shuffle some of the other items (either WG meetings or a plenary or both plenaries or all of the above) to make Sunday evening into an IETF time rather than a free timeslot. One or both plenary meetings could move to Sunday evening or some daytime slot, shuffling some WGs from day to night meetings if the latter were chosen. The final option, which the sentiment here so far does not seem to favour, is to put the two plenaries back to back on the same night. I strongly suspect that there are some limits to what scheduling flexibility, if any, remains for IETF/MSP in March. I'm sure the IETF Chair and the Secretariat will do something reasonable. Cheers, Ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)
Responding to the total collection of this thread. You all could save a lot of group meeting time by publishing all those regular Reports (RFC-Ed, etc, et al) on the IETF Web site or via EMail. After all they are mostly cut and dried with no discussion, prepared long in advance. Further, why should they be presented in person and published on the net for those who are not able to attend. Besides, if they are on the net, people who really need to be exposed to them at the meeting can get their exposure by going to the Computer Room in their idle time, which cannot be usefully aggregated in any other way. So, just get real about doing on the net what is best done on the net, and limit what is done face/face at meetings, to that which really needs to be done that way. Cheers...\Stef (Who has not been to a meeting for a long time now;-)...
