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
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
> 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 fact
> * 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 IA
> "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
> "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 ad
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 meet
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 possibilit
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 no
Since you asked for opinions...
> * Should we continue with the two-plenary model? Should we do
> so at every IETF, or consider some sort of periodic or
> occasional schedule?
Yes, I think we should continue with the two-plenary model for at least a
couple more IETF meetings. If we find that
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 04:42:45PM -0500, 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?
Please continue. Do so at every IETF modulo demand.
> * If so, should we continue with IESG
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 participat
-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
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 a
> 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 mo
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.
> >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 curr
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?
Yes, but move the Social to Sunday after the Reception so the IAB slot
can be done Tuesday.
> * If so, should we continue with IESG
> 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...
me too
randy
>
>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
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
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, w
Ran Atkinson writes:
| - Reception & Social might be merged together on Sunday evening.
The trend in vendor-sponsored social events lately has been so
abysmally awful that even working group meetings are less tedious,
so I fully support this suggestion for getting the Tuesday night
event
23 matches
Mail list logo
