Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Eric Burger]

I would offer we do the venture capital lightning round thing.

Schedule a *single* 2.5 hour slot for *all* BOFs.  Each BOF proposer gets 5 
minutes to make their pitch and 10 minutes of discussion.  I would bet that 15 
minutes of FOCUSED attention would give the IAB and IESG enough input as to (1) 
is there community interest, (2) is there community expertise, and (3) is the 
IETF the right place for the activity to occur.

Since Dave Crocker and John Klensin need to be at every BOF, this makes it easy 
for them to attend every one :-)


On Nov 8, 2010, at 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.
> 
> Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.
> 
> On behalf of the IESG,
> Russ Housley
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

___
From: Ross Callon [rcal...@juniper.net]

Thus [BOF proposals] take more time to evaluate [than requests for WG sessions].


I'm sure that's true.  But that doesn't change the fact that a useful BOF idea 
is likely to be conceived with less lead time before an IETF meeting than a 
need for a WG session.  Do we organize the schedule process based on what is 
most valuable or what makes the ADs lives easier?  (quite seriously)

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Scott Brim]

On 11/08/2010 12:47 GMT+08:00, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
> people can discuss it during the week.
> 
> dbh 

Yes, that's important, and better than what we have now.

I think that of what I've heard so far, the idea of scheduling 2 BOFs at
a time, all of Monday and whatever it takes of Tuesday, sounds most
likely to work.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Andrew G. Malis]

Like others that have chimed in, I'm just concerned that it will be
difficult to attend multiple BOFs of interest if they're all scheduled
against each other.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 12:47 PM, David Harrington  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
> people can discuss it during the week.
>
> dbh
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On
>> Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
>> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM
>> To: ietf@ietf.org
>> Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; The IESG
>> Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
>>
>> If we put the BOFs on Friday afternoon instead, wouldn't that
>> make the
>> attendance numbers an even stronger gauge of interest?
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
>> > The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling
>> experiment.  The
>> > goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and
>> also provide
>> > more time to craft BOF proposals.
>> >
>> > The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First,
>> schedule all BOFs
>> > for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know
>> which BOFs will
>> > be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
>> > proposal to ADs.
>> >
>> > Please let us know whether you support this experiment.
>> Discussion is
>> > welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.
>> >
>> > On behalf of the IESG,
>> > Russ Housley
>> >
>>
>
>
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[David Harrington]

Hi,

part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
people can discuss it during the week.

dbh 

> -Original Message-
> From: iesg-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-boun...@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: wgcha...@ietf.org; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
> 
> If we put the BOFs on Friday afternoon instead, wouldn't that 
> make the 
> attendance numbers an even stronger gauge of interest?
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling 
> experiment.  The
> > goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and 
> also provide
> > more time to craft BOF proposals.
> >
> > The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, 
> schedule all BOFs
> > for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know 
> which BOFs will
> > be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> > proposal to ADs.
> >
> > Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  
> Discussion is
> > welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.
> >
> > On behalf of the IESG,
> > Russ Housley
> >
> 

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Geoff Mulligan]

Maybe for the experiment we should also move the Social to Friday
evening: 1) it won't interfere with IP meeting time; 2) less people so
better chance of getting a ticket; 3) more folks will stay for Friday
meetings; 4) IETF meeting will be over so we can let our hair down -
oops that's not a problem now.

geoff



On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 10:40 +0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/2010 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> > The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> > for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> > be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> > proposal to ADs.
> >
> > Please let us know whether you support this experiment.
> 
> 
> 1.  Can you provide some rational for the details of the experiment?
> 
> 2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?
> 
> d/
> 


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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Kurt Zeilenga]

On Nov 7, 2010, at 6:26 PM, The IESG wrote:

> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.
> 
> Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

I would only support this experiment if all the BOFs were not only scheduled at 
the same time but in the same room.  :-)

-- Kurt

> 
> On behalf of the IESG,
> Russ Housley
> 
> ___
> 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: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Ross Callon]

WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide 
to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been 
made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual 
to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with the meeting 
request). 

BOF requests come in with proposals that vary widely in terms of how clear or 
how focused they are, how important the work appears to be, and so on. They 
require some degree of evaluation on the part of the responsible ADs (with 
input from appropriate others). Thus they take more time to evaluate. 

Ross

-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Worley, 
Dale R (Dale)
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:50 AM
To: Russ Housley; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment


From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ 
Housley [hous...@vigilsec.com]

The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one.  We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation.  So, yes,
the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline.
_

I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the 
need for the session will be reliably predicted.  Since BOFs are less formal, 
the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very 
shortly before the IETF meeting.

Dale
___
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: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Worley, Dale R (Dale)]

From: wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org [wgchairs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Russ 
Housley [hous...@vigilsec.com]

The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one.  We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation.  So, yes,
the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline.
_

I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the 
need for the session will be reliably predicted.  Since BOFs are less formal, 
the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very 
shortly before the IETF meeting.

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Spencer Dawkins]

Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will "do the 
right thing, whatever that turns out to be" ...



"Henk" == Henk Uijterwaal  writes:
   Henk> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 
7
   Henk> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the 
other
   Henk> 4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done 
by
   Henk> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the 
week,

   Henk> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.

I think this is the best idea.


I agree with this - front-load the BOFs, but not to the point where they 
collide with related BOFs ("do the right thing, whatever that turns out to 
be" ...)



If the rooms for the BOFs are clearly identified, then we can also
easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that
occurs most mornings.


My understanding of what BOFs are supposed to do, is that WG-forming BOFs 
should be demonstrating that there is a group of people who will do the work 
described in a proposed charter, and that they roughly agree that the 
proposed charter describes what they want to do.


If that's so, we should rarely have a WG-forming BOF that runs over an 
hour - and if THAT'S so, it will be easier to schedule BOFs early in the 
week without colliding with other BOFs.


The "bunch of people get together and talk" kind of BOF don't need to be so 
constrained on time - I'm focused on WG-forming BOFs when I say this.


Thanks,

Spencer 


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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Sun, Nov 07, 2010 at 06:26:49PM -0800, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.

I think the goals are good.

> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

I think that part 1 is potentially a problem, because of the same
conflict issues others have identified.

Scheduling all the BOFs at the beginning of the week actually does not
address the goals as stated.  It might address an additional goal,
which is that one can take advantage of the rest of the week to deal
with the BOF results.  But that advantage might not be enough to
offset the disadvantages of a lot of conflicts.  Also, whether there
is such an advantage could be measured later, in a different
experiment.

Therefore, I support the idea of undertaking this experiment without
the part where all the BOFs are scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Instead, spread the BOFs out as now.  I realise that this might
increase the chances that a BOF will cause scheduling conflicts for
ADs.

It would also be nice if we had success criteria for the experiment,
so we have some way of deciding what to do with the results of the
experiment.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
a...@shinkuro.com
Shinkuro, Inc.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Pete Resnick]

On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:

schedule all BOFs for Monday afternoon.


I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated earlier. This reduces 
cross-protocol review more than the minimal amount that is going on now.


pr

--
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Russ Housley]

Brian:

>> Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
>> proposal to ADs.
>
> Do you mean: make the BOF request cutoff later? If so, that is
> a feature, but since people are deadline driven, I'm not sure
> that moving the deadline is a major advantage.

The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one.  We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation.  So, yes,
the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline.

Russ

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Michael Richardson]

> "Henk" == Henk Uijterwaal  writes:
Henk> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
Henk> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
Henk> 4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
Henk> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week,
Henk> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.

I think this is the best idea.
If the rooms for the BOFs are clearly identified, then we can also
easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that
occurs most mornings.

-- 
]   He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!   |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON|net architect[
] m...@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video 
   then sign the petition. 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[gregory.cauchie]

I support the effort, but not the timing.

Maybe having an hour reserved at each end of the day for BoFs would be a 
compromise (just an idea popping right now).

> -Message d'origine-
> De : ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de
> Henk Uijterwaal
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2010 13:24
> Cc : wgcha...@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
> 
> 
> I think having the BOFs early in the week is a good idea but I'd modify
> the proposal a bit.
> 
> Background:  At this meeting, we have 8 BOFs.  There are also 7 or 8
> meetings in each of the sessions (9-11:30, 1-3, 3-4).
> 
> Scheduling all 8 BOFs at the same time will maximize overlap between
> them
> but otherwise not affect the schedule.   However, the overlap does
> not make this a good idea.  Also, the lengths of the BOFs will vary, so
> one size fits all is not a good idea.
> 
> If we schedule 4 BOFs at the time and have NO WG meetings in parallel,
> reduce overlap for the BOFs BUT at the same time create more conflicts
> for the rest of the week, as 8 WG sessions have to be put elsewhere in
> the schedule.   This is not a good idea either.4 BOFs with meetings
> in parallel works better.  4 BOFs with 4 regular meetings at the same
> time does not have much impact on the rest of the schedule, but there
> is still a fair chance of overlap.
> 
> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
> 4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week,
> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.
> 
> Henk
> 
> --
> ---
> ---
> Henk Uijterwaal   Email:
> henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
> RIPE Network Coordination Centre  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
> P.O.Box 10096  Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
> 1001 EB Amsterdam  1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
> The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746
> ---
> ---
> 
> I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous
> Politician.
> ___
> 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: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Henk Uijterwaal]

I think having the BOFs early in the week is a good idea but I'd modify
the proposal a bit.

Background:  At this meeting, we have 8 BOFs.  There are also 7 or 8
meetings in each of the sessions (9-11:30, 1-3, 3-4).

Scheduling all 8 BOFs at the same time will maximize overlap between them
but otherwise not affect the schedule.   However, the overlap does
not make this a good idea.  Also, the lengths of the BOFs will vary, so
one size fits all is not a good idea.

If we schedule 4 BOFs at the time and have NO WG meetings in parallel,
reduce overlap for the BOFs BUT at the same time create more conflicts
for the rest of the week, as 8 WG sessions have to be put elsewhere in
the schedule.   This is not a good idea either.4 BOFs with meetings
in parallel works better.  4 BOFs with 4 regular meetings at the same
time does not have much impact on the rest of the schedule, but there
is still a fair chance of overlap.

So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week,
and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.

Henk

-- 
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre  http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096  Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam  1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746
--

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.Anonymous Politician.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Barry Leiba]

>> Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
>> frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
>> are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
>> the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
>> the problem of clashes.
>
> Strongly agree!

As do I.  I attend BoFs across areas, with interest in looking at new
work in general.  I've often thought we should *never* schedule two
BoFs in the same time slot.  I'd hate to have guaranteed conflicts,
allowing me to attend only one or two BoFs when a dozen were
scheduled.

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

One of the factors that frequently determines the outcome of a piece
of work is how it is broken down into parts. So the scope of WGs in
formation can be the most significant factor in determining what they
produce.

Putting the BOFs at a known time would be very helpful for that
reason. Having the BOFs on Monday seems like a useful idea. Having
them only on Monday afternoon seems like it is going to cause rather
too many conflicts.

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:
> On 11/08/2010 10:26 GMT+08:00, The IESG wrote:
>> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
>> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
>> more time to craft BOF proposals.
>>
>> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
>> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
>> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
>> proposal to ADs.
>
> I am in favor of the goals but concerned about conflicts between BOFs.
> BOFs explore possible new work items for the IETF, and some decisions
> made in BOFs can be significant for the direction of IETF work, and hard
> to undo after the fact.  I am more likely to be unhappy about a
> scheduling conflict between BOFs than between a BOF and a WG that is
> continuing in its ordinary work, so I like having BOFs spread out
> through the week.  Have you thought about sensitivity of conflicts, and
> if so what were your thoughts?
>
> Scott
>
>
> ___
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Geoff Mulligan]

Maybe for the experiment we should also move the Social to Friday
evening: 1) it won't interfere with IP meeting time; 2) less people so
better chance of getting a ticket; 3) more folks will stay for Friday
meetings; 4) IETF meeting will be over so we can let our hair down -
oops that's not a problem now.

geoff



On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 10:40 +0800, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/2010 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> > The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> > for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> > be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> > proposal to ADs.
> >
> > Please let us know whether you support this experiment.
> 
> 
> 1.  Can you provide some rational for the details of the experiment?
> 
> 2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?
> 
> d/
> 



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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Aaron Falk]

On 11/8/10 10:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote:

  First, schedule all BOFs  for Monday afternoon.

Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
the problem of clashes.



Strongly agree!

 --aaron


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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  

Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
the problem of clashes.

> Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  

That is a feature of concentrating the BOFs, but I'm not sure
that it's particularly valuable. It moves the clashing problem,
but doesn't remove it.

> Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

Do you mean: make the BOF request cutoff later? If so, that is
a feature, but since people are deadline driven, I'm not sure
that moving the deadline is a major advantage.

> Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

It depends on my first question: how many BOF-BOF clashes would
we get as a result?

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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Scott Brim]

On 11/08/2010 10:26 GMT+08:00, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
> goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
> more time to craft BOF proposals.
> 
> The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
> for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

I am in favor of the goals but concerned about conflicts between BOFs.
BOFs explore possible new work items for the IETF, and some decisions
made in BOFs can be significant for the direction of IETF work, and hard
to undo after the fact.  I am more likely to be unhappy about a
scheduling conflict between BOFs than between a BOF and a WG that is
continuing in its ordinary work, so I like having BOFs spread out
through the week.  Have you thought about sensitivity of conflicts, and
if so what were your thoughts?

Scott


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

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Dave CROCKER]

On 11/8/2010 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:

The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
proposal to ADs.

Please let us know whether you support this experiment.



1.  Can you provide some rational for the details of the experiment?

2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?

d/

--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[Richard L. Barnes]

If we put the BOFs on Friday afternoon instead, wouldn't that make the 
attendance numbers an even stronger gauge of interest?




On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:

The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.

The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
proposal to ADs.

Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley


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

Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

[The IESG]

The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.

The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
proposal to ADs.

Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley

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