Oh, I can just see it now: YouTube of plenary with bad-attitute
subtitles
:-)
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: o...@cisco.com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
Skype: organdemo
On Wed, 3
>>In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
>>made in the other plenary.
>
>Or omitted entirely, since they are duplicative of data which would be better
>communicated in writing.
...and/or use some Internet technology, by producing YouTube report videos,
that p
On Aug 2, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
+1
> I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
> should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing act
> between varying preferences among participa
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be
> made in the other plenary.
Or omitted entirely, since they are duplicative of data which would be better
communicated in writing.
-Ekr
___
On 2011-08-03 05:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> ... Some people will still doubtless complain.
>
Could we take this as the conclusion of this discussion?
I'm being serious. Tuning the schedule in the light of feedback
should be a constant concern, amd it will always be a balancing act
betw
Peter,
A side benefit is that the IESG/IAB could have a lunch meeting on Friday
(as opposed to the current breakfast meeting) and cover all the hot
topics from the week (not the week minus Friday).
/psa
I agree with your point here, and add that the joint IAB/IESG Friday session
isn't only a
On 01/08/2011, at 2:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> I've noticed that lots of people (myself often included) are
> often sufficiently wasted by Friday morning to be largely
> disfunctional (certainly "less coherent than normal"). I'm
> prepared to believe that pushing back lunch would make it
On 8/1/11 3:50 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> So I think this is a good idea if it is feasible... even though
> my preference would be to go back to ending at noon (or 11:30 or
> earlier) on Friday by getting more efficient about how we use
> time earlier in the week and more selective about who and
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 16:38 -0500 Adam Roach
wrote:
> I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against
> this plan. By Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal
> schedule. Pushing lunch back by 2 hours would pretty well on
> guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and less coherent
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 08:05, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>> OTOH, I have good reason to think that the application of more focus by WGs
>> during their meetings *could* reduce the pressure on the whole schedule.
>> Thus,
>> the perennial thread on not presenting drafts at WG meetings would surely
>> b
On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
>> BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
>> Saturday *before* IETF week?
>
> Very much so.
> Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
> In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
>
> Nothing wron
> BTW, has anyone noticed the trend of doing more and more on the Sunday and
> Saturday *before* IETF week?
Very much so.
Workshops, joint meetings, design teams...
In Prague, a good number of people started in Friday.
Nothing wrong with that, but it does put paid to the idea that the IETF is 4.
I think John has the issue nailed. I think it would be easy to try to
eliminate the plenaries and then end up with a full Friday, anyway. I would
offer that it would be very difficult, however, to take a compressed Friday and
later add an afternoon to it. Thus, I am much more in favor of a co
Original Message -
From: "David Kessens"
To: "Russ Housley"
Cc: "IETF"
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:49 PM
>
> Russ,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> > I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the com
On 8/2/2011 6:35 AM, David Kessens wrote:
>
> Margaret,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>
>> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
>> conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries
>> and hold meetings during that
>
> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
> I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
> during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up again in the IAB, but now that you
mention it h
I'd like to add my voice to those who wouldn't like the proposed
compressed Friday schedule.
However, I do think there are things we could try to tweak the
schedule. For example, perhaps on one or two days, we could split
the morning slot into two slots of 1:10 with a ten-minute break.
Many
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 19:02 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
wrote:
>...
> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to
> conflicts, I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the
> plenaries and hold meetings during that time slot.
Margaret,
FWIW, I personally think the plenarie
On 2011-08-02 11:35, David Kessens wrote:
> Margaret,
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
>> I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
>> during that time s
Margaret,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts,
> I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings
> during that time slot.
I was already planning to bring this up a
I greatly prefer the current meeting schedule to one that packs meetings in to
a shorter time period on Friday. As another poster mentioned, I too am tired by
Friday, and I'm unlikely to stay focused through 5 straight hours of meetings,
especially if I'm expected to keep going two hours past w
Do I hear a call for a morning cookie break?
Tony hansen
On 8/1/2011 5:50 PM, Andrew Allen wrote:
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley
Cc: IETF
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
F
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out against this plan. By
Friday, I'm pretty well on a local meal schedule. Pushing lunch back by
2 hours would pretty well on guarantee that I'd be sugar-crashed and
less coherent than normal by the end of Session II.
/a
On 8/1/11 10:10 AM, Russ
Russ,
On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Russ Housley wrote:
> I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
> report back to the community as soon as possible.
I don't think this proposal should be pursued. The breaks fulfil an
important function and there i
I am discussing the possibility with the Secretariat and the IESG. I will
report back to the community as soon as possible.
Russ
>>> On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>>
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session
On 8/1/11 5:14 PM, "Keith Moore" wrote:
>On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>
>> For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
>> Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
>> and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch o
Keith Moore wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
>
> > For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
> > Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
> > and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch our laptop screens.
On Aug 1, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>
> That may work, but it does require that someone be at the meeting venue
> while the rest sit in the airport.
Or we could all just meet at the airport. :)
I suspect that one of the many problems with trying to depend on remote
parti
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
> For one, I suggest we take remote-participation _seriously_ for the
> Friday meetings. Many of us are waiting-for-Godot at airports on Friday,
> and could certainly wear a headphone/mike and watch our laptop screens.
Interesting idea...though wou
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
> Thomas Nadeau wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
>>> On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>>
Something like this:
8:30-11:00 Session I
11:15-12:15 Session II
12:30-13:30 Session III
>>>
: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Hadriel Kaplan
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 5:40 PM
> To: IETF-Discussion list
> Subject: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
>
> Howdy,
> First I'd like to thank the organizers for IETF-81
Thomas Nadeau wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Eric Burger wrote:
>> On Jul 31, 2011, at 11:40 AM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:
>>
>>> Something like this:
>>> 8:30-11:00 Session I
>>> 11:15-12:15 Session II
>>> 12:30-13:30 Session III
>>
>> I really like it, as there are a bunch of post-IETF stu
I'd actually vote for NO meetings on Fridays. %90 of attendees fly home
on Friday if at all possible, especially since most of us have flown in on
Sunday. Unless you are local to the meeting, it is a major hassle leaving
after the meetings on Friday, especially if you are international
+1 to that as well ..an excellent proposal.
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric
Burger
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:48 AM
To: Hadriel Kaplan
Cc: IETF-Discussion list
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I don't think I have seen a proposal like this before. I really like it, as
there are a bunch of post-IETF stuff, some of which starts in the afternoon and
thus conflicts with the IETF. This fixes that problem, enables us to have the
same amount of meeting time, and potentially lets people get
Howdy,
First I'd like to thank the organizers for IETF-81 for another well-run
meeting. The logistics and coordination for such an event must be daunting,
and I know we (the attendees) tend to focus on the negatives rather than the
positives... but we really are thankful for all the time and ef
37 matches
Mail list logo
