W.r.t. the claims about weekends being spoiled for those
traveling in from different continents, I would observe that
the way we schedule things now basically means that many
of those travelers get 2 weekends (at least partially)
taken away from their friends/families.
If we were to get people to
At 10:34 PM 1/18/2002 +, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>Including the decades of research into circadian rhythms and jetlag
>that you have somehow overlooked. The effect depends on the direction.
not overlooked at all. actual reactions to direction show pretty wide
variance between and within individua
At 04:39 PM 1/18/2002 +, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>I have a feeling we are going to have t think
>VERY hard about the entire schedule for the 54th meeting oin
>Yokohama given 80% of folks there wil be on severe sleep
>deprivation...
From the western US, Europe is as good/bad as Japan for time
d
> I have a feeling we are going to have t think
> VERY hard about the entire schedule for the 54th meeting oin
> Yokohama given 80% of folks there wil be on severe sleep
> deprivation...
i know the japanese are said to be workaholic. but will they
be more tired than the 20% of us who fly?
ra
Folks who scan only the titles of last call announcements might
want to note that the the actions proposed below will not only
elevate SNMPv3 to Standard but will also reclassify SNMPv1 and
SNMPv2c as Historic.
//cmh
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 09:51:52 -0500
F
I have a feeling we are going to have t think
VERY hard about the entire schedule for the 54th meeting oin
Yokohama given 80% of folks there wil be on severe sleep
deprivation...
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dave Crocker typed:
>>At 10:02 AM 1/18/2002 -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
>>>Having on
--On Thursday, January 17, 2002 07:03:21 PM -0500 Ran Atkinson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doing something on Sunday might create more options. Quite separately,
> it was true in the past that IETF would have one or more morning plenary
> meetings (which could be attempted again).
> - Rec
At 10:02 AM 1/18/2002 -0500, Scott Brim wrote:
>Having one of them on Sunday doesn't work because it takes a couple days
>for the issues to become clear.
IAB issues do not emerge over the course of a few days of IETF
meeting. IESG issues, however, sometimes do.
>Combining the Social with the
> But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary
> immediately BEFORE the Sunday reception?
>
> Besides technical presentations, IANA report and the like, it could include
> the IAB time, since the IAB is about 'strategic' issues. (Having the IESG
> later in the week is useful
The IESG and IAB activities have become more important to the IETF at
large recently. They should be given more space in line with their
increased significance to the participants. Trying to cram it all into
one after-dinner meeting doesn't feel right anymore. I believe in 2
plenaries.
Having
some people don't live in the US but do have families
50% of us are
flying out saturday to be there for sunday all day meetings, flying
eastwards on friday, to get back mid day saturday, we lose 2 weekends.
compare this to intra-US flite to and from, i don';t think esxtending
friday is sustainab
My two ag.
>
> IETF Community,
>
> During the London IETF Plenary, there was general consensus that
> the IAB and IESG should separate their plenaries to give more
> time for discussion of general architectural issues in the
> former. We did that in Salt Lake City, with the IESG Plenary in
> i
On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 07:14:24 PST, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards
> (after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.
Geeks on booze is actually OK if you're socializing - you get the most
AMAZING war stories that
Squeezing time out of turnip...
Folks,
There has been some suggestion about having a working meeting after the
Sunday reception. I'm inclined to think that trying to have it afterwards
(after socializing and alcohol) is problematic.
But what about having a 90-120 minute plenary
John Klensin wrote:
>
> * And should the IAB try to control microphone time, or is it
> better to let people explain their views at whatever length that
> takes?
One simple scheduling algorithm would be to have two microphone queues:
one for those speaking for the first time and one for those s
> (at least for US-homed travellers)
Can we please keep in mind that half the attendees are not from the US?
My current IETF schedule is something like:
* Fly on Saturday (10-15 hours, 6-9 hour time change),
* Relatively quiet Sunday to recover,
* Meetings Monday-Friday morning,
* Catch a
16 matches
Mail list logo
