Re: Scheduling years in advance [Re: voting system for future venues?]
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Narten wrote: > > That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C > > and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping > > participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we > > went to the current advance scheduling. > > Understood. > > But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule > and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two > legs bad") > > If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms > of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on > *consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such > a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done > with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid > clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no > matter what seems unhelpful. > > At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming > asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate > dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately > to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what > to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates, > period." > > As we move the meeting scheduling window from 1.5 years out to 3 years, I think that that is one of the things we should consider when necessary. Of course, hopefully that same move will make it less necessary. Regards Marshall > Thomas > ___ > 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: Scheduling years in advance [Re: voting system for future venues?]
> That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C > and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping > participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we > went to the current advance scheduling. Understood. But I wonder of we've forgotten the original motivation for this rule and it has become an unchangable slogan (e.g., "four legs good, two legs bad") If, in fact, a date we've chosen turns out to be problematic in terms of getting a good site, the IAOC should consider (emphasis on *consider*) whether an alternate date would be better. Of course, such a change in date should not be done lightly. And it should not be done with out checking with the specific organizations we try to avoid clashes with, etc. But to say the dates are fixed and immovable no matter what seems unhelpful. At the plenary, I recall it being said that for one of the upcoming asian meetings, the exact dates were problematical, and alternate dates would have had better options/rates. When I suggested privately to the IAOC that they should *consider* changing the date, I got (what to me) felt like one big knee jerk "we can't change the dates, period." Thomas ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Scheduling years in advance [Re: voting system for future venues?]
On 2011-08-30 22:04, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 30 aug 2011, at 9:22, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > >> That is a 4.5 year difference in when the exact date is announced. This >> increase the risk that there is a clash with another meeting and people >> cannot plan much in advance. > > Come on, the idea that people need to know the date of a meeting more than > 1.5 years out or they won't be able to plan their attendance is ridiculous. I > don't even know which country I'll be living in 1.5 years from now. That isn't the point. It's to avoid clashes with IEEE, ITU-T, W3C and numerous others standards bodies that have overlapping participants. There were constant problems in the past, until we went to the current advance scheduling. Brian ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
