Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Hadriel Kaplan]

+1

-hadriel

On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

> +1.  I could also happily live with the alternate, more
> compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
> schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
> 
>   john
> 
> 
> --On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
>>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday
>>> of IETF 82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these
>>> potential changes.
>>> 
>>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
>>> using this schedule:
>>> 
>>> 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
>>> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
>>> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
>>> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
>>> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III
>>> 
>>> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the
>>> cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.
>>> The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed
>>> without raising the meeting fee.
>> 
>> I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Joel jaeggli]

On 8/23/11 03:25 , Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
> 
> If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> properly, then this ideology needs to go.
> 
> Fully agree. We should consider Friday (morning) as yet another
> normal (.5) IETF day or not. 

The schedule for the last few meetings has in fact done that.
not-considering it normal would be a deviation from recent behavior.

>   jaap
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Fred Baker]

On Aug 23, 2011, at 6:48 AM, IETF Chair wrote:

> The important dates page for the meeting 
>  shows a date for 
> the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda.  We try very hard to make 
> no changes after the final agenda date.  Sometimes changes are unavoidable 
> because the Area Directors learn about WG-specific details that cause 
> conflicts.  That said, we do our best to keep to the final agenda.

To my way of thinking, that's the key bit. That said, I could wish that were a 
week earlier than 10/21. I am planning November travel now, and expect it will 
include visits to Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore simply because I am in the 
region and people are making those requests. Hence, I expect to leave home 29 
October. Company policy wants me to have hotels and flights sorted out two 
weeks earlier. So I will assume I have a Friday meeting, and if I don't I'll 
make the time available to my local sales people.

On Aug 22, 2011, at 2:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
> 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III

For those flying to Japan, the last flight leaves around 2:30, but most flights 
are late morning
 http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_NRT,Nov18
This does help those going to Beijing:
 http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_PEK,Nov18
Hong Kong is of course every hour: http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_HKG,Nov18
The change does help those going to Singapore and Sydney:
 http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SIN,Nov18
 http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SYD,Nov18

So there will be some locals and relatively-locals that can make the afternoon 
flight home, and more power to them. My guess is that, like me, anyone from 
Europe or North America who thinks they *might* have a meeting on Friday will 
be planning a flight home Saturday (http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SFO,Nov18). If 
I'm flying Saturday, shifting meetings by a couple of hours on Friday doesn't 
make much difference. 

We have a discussion of this topic every IETF meeting, and every IETF meeting 
there is a lot of moaning and groaning about flights home. My perspective: we 
all want to go home, and the trade-off I just described happens - it just 
happens to different groups each time. We don't have enough time in the week to 
avoid doing something on Friday. We all wind up with Friday meetings - for 
myself, in the past several years, more often than not. So the only meetings I 
can actually plan to fly home from on Friday are meetings on the North American 
west coast - even the east coast usually means I'm out too late to make the 
flight home.

Get over it. Publish the agenda, and if that means we have to fly home 
Saturday, whatever.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Andrew G. Malis]

+1 for me as well for either proposed new schedule.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin  wrote:
> +1.  I could also happily live with the alternate, more
> compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
> schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
>
>   john
>
>
> --On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
>>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday
>>> of IETF 82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these
>>> potential changes.
>>>
>>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
>>> using this schedule:
>>>
>>>  9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
>>> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
>>> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
>>> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
>>> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III
>>>
>>> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the
>>> cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.
>>> The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed
>>> without raising the meeting fee.
>>
>> I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[IETF Chair]

Shane:

>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>>  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>> 
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
>> schedule:
> 
> In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
> agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
> we see in the Tao of the IETF:
> 
>... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
>participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
>scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
>present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 
> 
> This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
> there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
> meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
> time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
> "annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.
> 
> If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> properly, then this ideology needs to go.
> 
> Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

The important dates page for the meeting 
 shows a date for 
the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda.  We try very hard to make no 
changes after the final agenda date.  Sometimes changes are unavoidable because 
the Area Directors learn about WG-specific details that cause conflicts.  That 
said, we do our best to keep to the final agenda.

Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Shane Kerr]

Glen,

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
> > 
> > If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> > extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> > extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> > properly, then this ideology needs to go.
> 
> Either that or the idea that Friday is an "off day" has to go.  Oh,
> wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  

I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that Friday is considered an "off
day". I did not even say that the working group session that I missed
was on a Friday.

What I think is we would get a better use of time by making an agenda
and sticking to it. I think that would make it easier on everyone
attending. I also think that without this, Friday slots will always be
ghetto.

> Slow learner or just in denial?

That's pretty rude. It makes me sad that this kind of mail is "okay" at
the IETF. :(

--
Shane

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Jaap Akkerhuis]

If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Fully agree. We should consider Friday (morning) as yet another
normal (.5) IETF day or not. 

jaap

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Glen Zorn]

On 8/23/2011 5:08 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Russ,
> 
> On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>>   The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>>
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
>> schedule:
> 
> In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
> agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
> we see in the Tao of the IETF:
> 
> ... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
> participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
> scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
> present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 
> 
> This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
> there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
> meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
> time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
> "annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.
> 
> If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
> extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
> extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
> properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Either that or the idea that Friday is an "off day" has to go.  Oh,
wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  Slow learner or just in denial?

> 
> Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> Shane
> 
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Agenda known in advance? was Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Shane Kerr]

Russ,

On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>   The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
> 
> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
> schedule:

In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
we see in the Tao of the IETF:

... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 

This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
"annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.

If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

Thanks,

--
Shane

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[John C Klensin]

+1.  I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.

   john


--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
 wrote:

> 
> 
> On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday
>> of IETF 82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these
>> potential changes.
>> 
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
>> using this schedule:
>> 
>>  9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
>> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
>> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
>> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
>> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III
>> 
>> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the
>> cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.
>> The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed
>> without raising the meeting fee.
> 
> I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed.




___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Eliot Lear]

On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.  The 
> IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>
> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this 
> schedule:
>
>  9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III
>
> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost associated 
> with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC believes that the 
> additional cost can be managed without raising the meeting fee.

I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed.

Eliot
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: [IETF] Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Warren Kumari]

On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
> 
>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.  The 
>> IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>> 
>> The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this 
>> schedule:
>> 
>>  9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
>> 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
>> 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
>> 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
>> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III
> 
> I'd suggest shortening the first session and eliminating the cookie break, so:
> 
> 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM: Session I
> 10:30 AM - 10:40 AM: room change
> 10:40 AM - 11:40 AM: Session II
> 11:40 AM - 11:50 AM: room change
> 11:50 AM - 12:50 PM: Session III
> 
> I don't think 20 minutes is sufficient for a cookie break and room change, 
> and think we can go without in order to be done sooner. However, if people 
> really want cookies, perhaps they could be in the meeting rooms during 
> Session II instead of centrally?

Or perhaps they could plan ahead a little and grab a cookie or two (and some 
coffee) before the meeting….

W


> 
> -- 
> Randall Gellens
> Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
> -- Randomly selected tag: ---
> If you can't annoy somebody there's little point in writing --Kingsley Amis
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> 

___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[Randall Gellens]

At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:

 The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 
82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.


 The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using 
this schedule:


  9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
 11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
 11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
 12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III


I'd suggest shortening the first session and eliminating the cookie break, so:

 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM: Session I
10:30 AM - 10:40 AM: room change
10:40 AM - 11:40 AM: Session II
11:40 AM - 11:50 AM: room change
11:50 AM - 12:50 PM: Session III

I don't think 20 minutes is sufficient for a cookie break and room 
change, and think we can go without in order to be done sooner. 
However, if people really want cookies, perhaps they could be in the 
meeting rooms during Session II instead of centrally?


--
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;facts are suspect;I speak for myself only
-- Randomly selected tag: ---
If you can't annoy somebody there's little point in writing --Kingsley Amis
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[James M. Polk]

At 04:24 PM 8/22/2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 
82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.


The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using 
this schedule:


 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III


since there will be cookies, this is ok with me  ;-)


The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost 
associated with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC 
believes that the additional cost can be managed without raising the 
meeting fee.


bonus

James



On behalf of the IESG,
   Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Experiment for different schedule for Friday

[IETF Chair]

The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.  The 
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.

The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule:

 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III

The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost associated 
with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC believes that the 
additional cost can be managed without raising the meeting fee.

On behalf of the IESG,
   Russ
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf