meeting slots

[Mark Andrews]

In deciding whether to attend a IETF meeting or not it would
be useful to know if chairs have requested a meeting slot
or have decided not to meet or are still undecided.

This information is known well before a actual agenda is
drawn up.  Why is it, effectively, hidden until the agenda
is published?

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE:  +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: meeting slots

[Margaret Wasserman]

+1

It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the chairs have 
provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can point out (hopefully to the 
chairs) potential conflicts that the chairs may have omitted. 

Margaret

On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:

> 
>   In deciding whether to attend a IETF meeting or not it would
>   be useful to know if chairs have requested a meeting slot
>   or have decided not to meet or are still undecided.
> 
>   This information is known well before a actual agenda is
>   drawn up.  Why is it, effectively, hidden until the agenda
>   is published?
> 
>   Mark
> -- 
> Mark Andrews, ISC
> 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
> PHONE:+61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
> ___
> 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: meeting slots

[Dave CROCKER]

It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the chairs have 
provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can point out (hopefully to the 
chairs) potential conflicts that the chairs may have omitted.



While this sounds intuitively very appealing, it seems likely to set an 
expectation that the folks trying to schedule meeting times will juggle the 
conflicts of all attendees.  That doesn't sound like something that can scale. 
(My impression is that the current scale of the task is at a limit.)


Even if it could, it dramatically increases the number of conflicts and, 
therefore, the number of conflicts that cannot be resolved well.  So, while 
reasonable and well-intentioned, this seems likely to greatly increase staff 
workload and greatly increase community unhappiness.  All in all, not an 
appealing outcome.


In contrast, publishing the requests for slots seems an easy and scalable task. 
 Since requests are usually satisfied -- that is, those asking for a meeting 
slot usually get them -- it helps attendee "macro" planning, without getting 
into the finer-grained day-of-week and time-of-day debates.


d/


--

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

Re: meeting slots

[Margaret Wasserman]

I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts.  However, I thought 
this might help us avoid some of the issues we've had in the past, where 
obvious group-level conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled 
at the last moments.  

Margaret

On Oct 12, 2011, at 1:06 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

> 
>> It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the chairs have 
>> provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can point out (hopefully to 
>> the chairs) potential conflicts that the chairs may have omitted.
> 
> 
> While this sounds intuitively very appealing, it seems likely to set an 
> expectation that the folks trying to schedule meeting times will juggle the 
> conflicts of all attendees.  That doesn't sound like something that can 
> scale. (My impression is that the current scale of the task is at a limit.)
> 
> Even if it could, it dramatically increases the number of conflicts and, 
> therefore, the number of conflicts that cannot be resolved well.  So, while 
> reasonable and well-intentioned, this seems likely to greatly increase staff 
> workload and greatly increase community unhappiness.  All in all, not an 
> appealing outcome.
> 
> In contrast, publishing the requests for slots seems an easy and scalable 
> task.  Since requests are usually satisfied -- that is, those asking for a 
> meeting slot usually get them -- it helps attendee "macro" planning, without 
> getting into the finer-grained day-of-week and time-of-day debates.
> 
> d/
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> ___
> 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: meeting slots

[Dave CROCKER]

On 10/12/2011 10:27 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts.  However, I thought 
this might help us avoid some of the issues we've had in the past, where 
obvious group-level conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled 
at the last moments.


I'll suggest a more distributed model:

Chairs circulate among their wg, the conflicts they believe should be avoided. 
When that discussion settles down, the chairs submit their set to ietf staff. 
IETF staff and ietf main list are thereby spared the effort, but each set gets 
review beyond the chairs.


d/
--

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

Re: meeting slots

[Michael Richardson]

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave CROCKER  writes:
>> It would also be good to expose the conflict lists that the
>> chairs have provided ahead of time, so that WG participants can
>> point out (hopefully to the chairs) potential conflicts that the
>> chairs may have omitted.


Dave> While this sounds intuitively very appealing, it seems likely
Dave> to set an expectation that the folks trying to schedule
Dave> meeting times will juggle the conflicts of all attendees.
Dave> That doesn't sound like something that can scale. (My
Dave> impression is that the current scale of the task is at a
Dave> limit.)

If it reduces the demand for meeting slots, because a chair realizes
that nobody is coming to their WG, due to a conflict, then that's good
news.

We have too many slots.

-- 
]   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 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
   then sign the petition. 
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: meeting slots

[John C Klensin]

--On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:11 -0700 Dave CROCKER
 wrote:

> On 10/12/2011 10:27 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts.
>> However, I thought this might help us avoid some of the
>> issues we've had in the past, where obvious group-level
>> conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled at
>> the last moments.
> 
> I'll suggest a more distributed model:
> 
> Chairs circulate among their wg, the conflicts they believe
> should be avoided. When that discussion settles down, the
> chairs submit their set to ietf staff. IETF staff and ietf
> main list are thereby spared the effort, but each set gets
> review beyond the chairs.

Of course, some WGs / Chairs have been doing this, or variations
on it. for some years now.   I'd venture that it works better in
some WGs than others... much like many other things.

   john





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

Re: meeting slots

[Robert Sparks]

I understand Dave's concern, but I think it would be valuable to make it easy 
to see
what has been requested. Any changes to the conflict list would still have to 
come 
through the chairs, encouraging that distributed work model.

I've entered this as an idea that someone might pick up for work at a 
codesprint:


RjS

On Oct 12, 2011, at 8:53 PM, John C Klensin wrote:

> 
> 
> --On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 11:11 -0700 Dave CROCKER
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 10/12/2011 10:27 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>> I was not picturing everyone adding their own conflicts.
>>> However, I thought this might help us avoid some of the
>>> issues we've had in the past, where obvious group-level
>>> conflicts are omitted, and meetings have to be rescheduled at
>>> the last moments.
>> 
>> I'll suggest a more distributed model:
>> 
>> Chairs circulate among their wg, the conflicts they believe
>> should be avoided. When that discussion settles down, the
>> chairs submit their set to ietf staff. IETF staff and ietf
>> main list are thereby spared the effort, but each set gets
>> review beyond the chairs.
> 
> Of course, some WGs / Chairs have been doing this, or variations
> on it. for some years now.   I'd venture that it works better in
> some WGs than others... much like many other things.
> 
>   john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

Reducing parallel meeting slots

[Dave Crocker]

Aaron,

AF> Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the 
AF> IETF meeting.  For example, try to come up with some objective criteria 
AF> for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc.


Although there are some exceptions, we generally treat IETF resources as
being free.  Since they are in fact very expensive and often are very
scarce, I think that any effort to do better resource allocation would
be very helpful for IETF productivity.

Certainly this should include productivity requirements for getting
meeting slots.  Rather than trying to create more slots (more days or
more simultaneous meetings) we should be looking for ways to REDUCE the
number of parallel (conflicting) meetings.


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>


___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Reducing parallel meeting slots

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 1-aug-04, at 17:10, Dave Crocker wrote:
Although there are some exceptions, we generally treat IETF resources 
as
being free.  Since they are in fact very expensive and often are very
scarce, I think that any effort to do better resource allocation would
be very helpful for IETF productivity.
This may or may not be the case, but:
Certainly this should include productivity requirements for getting
meeting slots.  Rather than trying to create more slots (more days or
more simultaneous meetings) we should be looking for ways to REDUCE the
number of parallel (conflicting) meetings.
...it doesn't address the problem of overlapping sessions. Sessions are 
going to overlap. This is only a problem when people want to attend 
more than one during any particular slot. The fact that people want to 
attend a session makes it highly unlikely that such a session is so 
unproductive that scrapping it alltoghether would be better. (I don't 
believe IETFers are so stupid they keep showing up for unproductive 
sessions.)

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Re: Reducing parallel meeting slots

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 5-aug-04, at 15:21, Michael Richardson wrote:
Iljitsch> The fact that people want to attend a
Iljitsch> session makes it highly unlikely that such a session is 
so
Iljitsch> unproductive that scrapping it alltoghether would be
Iljitsch> better. (I don't believe IETFers are so stupid they keep
Iljitsch> showing up for unproductive sessions.)

  I can think of a number of BOFs, and even some WGs that are very well
attended, but have not made any progress.
The trouble is, that even if you can define success fully (which is 
difficult enough in its own right), that still makes it very hard to 
impossible to determine which efforts are going to turn out successful 
a) beforehand and b) somewhere along the way.

My original contention was that these groups are either stuck
Yes. Unfortunately the IETF doesn't seem to have any way to arrive at 
decisions other than wait, wait some more and  until at some point 
rough consensus happens. The whole IPv6 resolver issue in dnsop is a 
good example of this problem.

Yet, to make the decision they need to progress, they really need
three days of intensive time, and they probably need to have a smaller
(more manageable) group attending.
I don't see how sitting in a room for three days is going to achieve 
something that doing the same for a shorter time + offline preparation 
can't.

  Finally, as has been discussed previously (particularly during our
peak, when we didn't fit in the hotels anymore), with wireless, people
can occupy seats and not pay attention.
I have some pictures of people playing games on their laptops which 
prove that it's not the fault of the wireless network.  :-)

Much of what happens in sessions is very uninteresting, either for the 
people who've read the drafts OR the people who haven't. (Hopefully not 
both...)

Personally, I would be much happier to keep all the nasty details on 
the mailing lists and use the meeting sessions to talk about what the 
wg is doing for a larger audience. That would probably lead to good 
feedback from people who aren't on the wg mailinglist.


PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

Multiple meeting slots (Re: survey on Friday IETF sessions)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

--On 22. juli 2004 10:55 -0700 Aaron Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps we should raise the bar on what it takes to get a slot at the
IETF meeting.  For example, try to come up with some objective criteria
for what deserves a 1hr slot, 2hrs, multiple, etc.  This  might even
nudge groups into making some additional progress  ("you can't have your
meeting if you don't hit a/some milestones").
note - there aren't that many multiple-slot WGs.
Here's the list a quick scan came up with for this meeting:
avt--
dnsext--
geopriv-- (2x1h)
l2vpn-- (2x1h)
marid--
mip6--
nsis--
radext--
rohc-- (2x1h)
simple--
sip--
sipping--
v6ops--
xcon--
aaa-- (2x1h)
opsec-- (2x1h)
16, out of which 5 clearly are 2-hour requests that were put into 1-hour 
slots. So outlawing double-slot WGs altogehter gives us 11 more slots to 
play with.

That's more than adding a Thursday evening slot gives us - but it's not 
much. if we want to do something that really reduces demand for slots, 
we have to force the "normal" size of a meeting down to 1 hour (somehow).

Personally, I'm as worried about this list:
adslmib
atompub
bridge
disman
ediint
fax
idmr
idwg
impp
iporpr
ipp
ipr
ipsec
ipseckey
ipsp
iptel
kink
l2tpext
megaco
mipshop
msgtrk
nntpext
openpgp
policy
pppext
problem
ptomaine
rap
sacred
seamoby
secsh
send
sigtran
snmpconf
spirits
ssm
stime
syslog
tewg
tls
trade
usefor
vpim
xmpp
zeroconf
It's the set of WGs that are (based on my quick count) NOT meeting in San 
Diego - 46 WGs. Some (like ipr and problem) are just waiting for their RFCs 
to pop out before closing down but others may not be

Assuming no liability for possible errors.
Harald

___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf