The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not able to get as much
meeting time as they
After discussion among the IAB, IESG, and IAOC, we have decided to conduct
a second experiment at IETF 73 that was suggested during the Thursday
evening plenary in Dublin. This experiment creates an additional hour of
meeting time for working groups by holding both the technical and the
On the Telechat today, the IESG made a decision to proceed with this
experiment. The IETF Secretariat has been directed to update the web
site to indicate that the IETF meeting will continue until 3:15 PM on Friday.
After each meeting the IAD conducts a survey. The IAD has been asked
to
David:
I support this experiment. Why short sessions? Why not longer
sessions?
The reason for short sessions is that the Secretariat can assign
adjacent slots to the same WG to create a long one if that is what is needed.
Russ
___
Ietf mailing
Fred,
So, you are asserting that the primary working groups that I interact
with, of which v6ops is typical, are all outliers.
I suspect that the story of several blind wise men describing an
elephant is relevant here. My view of the elephant is as I described.
Your view of the elephant may
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not
available anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )
I keep hearing this, and I use it every week. Someday I'll figure out
why people say this.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
marratech was aquired by google in 2005 , so i guess its not available
anymore ( was java by the way and a bit slow )
I keep hearing this, and I use it every week. Someday
Michael:
There is at least one WG that never held a single face-to-face
meeting. They are certainly not required.
Many WGs do take advantage of non-face-to-face meeting alternatives
to resolve issues between meetings. For example, single-topic jabber
chats have been scheduled and used.
hello experts
just a question , why not use
http://www.accessgrid.org/ you could save a lot of CO2 ;)
just my 2 cents
regards
Marc
Teleconferencing, in this context, includes any
communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
without having to travel,
--
Les enfants
On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
hello experts
just a question , why not use
http://www.accessgrid.org/ you could save a lot of CO2 ;)
Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use (and
troubleshoot). There is
no question that it could be useful - so
Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
hello experts
just a question , why not use
http://www.accessgrid.org/ you could save a lot of CO2 ;)
Accessgrid in my experience requires some work to set up and use
(and troubleshoot).
Hello Marc;
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
hello experts
just a question , why not use
http://www.accessgrid.org/ you could save a lot of CO2 ;)
Accessgrid in my
Can you enumerate the various options? Thanks.
On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Eric;
On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
I will take a swag...
On the one hand, having had (and, believe it or not, this time by
request) work group meetings on Friday
Oh yes. I too like the 4a option!!!
Thanks!
On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Dear Eric
On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Can you enumerate the various options? Thanks.
See the attached email which describes them - here is the list with
a description
Am 24.07.2008 um 16:04 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:
Hello Marc;
On Jul 24, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
Am 24.07.2008 um 14:52 schrieb Marshall Eubanks:
On Jul 24, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
hello experts
just a question , why not use
http://www.accessgrid.org/ you could
AFAIK , VRVS / EVO is not available for PC
Not so, EVO works very well on Windows and is trivial
to install. The problem with EVO, Access Grid or the
commercial alternatives is not there - it's the extreme
difficulty of running an effective remote meeting with
more than a very small number (4
Am 24.07.2008 um 23:13 schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
it's the extreme difficulty of running an effective remote meeting
with
more than a very small number (4 or 5) of participating sites. So
for a design team meeting it's fine, but for a WG meeting I think
you'd be quite disappointed.
I will take a swag...
On the one hand, having had (and, believe it or not, this time by
request) work group meetings on Friday morning, the Friday slot is an
excellent filter to ensure that only the die-hard participants and
those people paying their own way who need a Saturday Night
Dear Eric;
On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
I will take a swag...
On the one hand, having had (and, believe it or not, this time by
request) work group meetings on Friday morning, the Friday slot is
an excellent filter to ensure that only the die-hard participants
and
Dear Eric
On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:
Can you enumerate the various options? Thanks.
See the attached email which describes them - here is the list with a
description of each. If you can think up more,
let me know.
Marshall
Option DescriptionExtra
Hi,
I support this experiment. Why short sessions? Why not longer
sessions?
In my experience, Friday sessions are invaluable for having working
sessions rather than status sessions, and Friday sessions have been
preferred in some WGs as a way to get real f2f time for engineering.
David
On Jul 21, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Anyone promoting a point of view is going to find an example to
support it. What we need, instead, is a sense of typical, to use
as the base for our consideration. Yes, we also need to consider
outliers, but we need to treat them as
IMHO, defining things to a gnat's eyelash is mostly employment for
lawyer-wannabes, and doesn't necessarily help in reality.
Teleconferencing, in this context, includes any communications
vehicle that enables participants to meet without having to travel,
and which they all agree to. Could
Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73
--On July 18, 2008 7:20:37 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available
meeting time.
I think this is a key point. Rather than expanding the number of slots why
--On Friday, 18 July, 2008 17:53 +0300 Jari Arkko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For local flights, what would be the effect? I don't have a
lot of experience with US local flights... maybe you can fill
me in? To look at this, I entered a few major cities on both
coasts into my flight booking
On Jul 18, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
+2: Stellar
+1: Very good shape
0: On target
-1: Behind the curve
-2: In very serious trouble
+3. A truly promising idea, I think. I'd like to see the number
based largely on the subjective assessment of as many
Marshall,
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at using
the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in
Given the relatively important meetings that tend to occur on
Saturday and Sunday before the main IETF meeting, the Sunday
tutorials, this would probably not let nearly enough people show
up Monday afternoon (for Tuesday meetings) to be worth it. Now,
if one adopted your suggestion but but the
On Jul 18, 2008, at 1:55 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at
using the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think
Fred Baker wrote:
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
w have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a number of drafts in our
time. I would often like to allow a discussion to be longer, for the
same reason that we meet f2f in the first place -
No, cramming
Fred Baker wrote:
So, you are asserting that the primary working groups that I interact
with, of which v6ops is typical, are all outliers.
Possibly. But, yes, possibly not. My point is that this discussion
hasn't considered the question. (Based on RFC 5218, each of us ought to
be
To elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for
teleconferencing
are governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require
something like one month's advance notice plus attendance
requirements
at the previous IETF, and a minimum period of time between
meetings.
I
Teleconferencing, in this context, includes any
communications vehicle that enables participants to meet
without having to travel, and which they all agree to. Could
be telephone, skype with or without video, Marratech, Webex,
Citrix, or anything else as long as they all agree.
Sounds
Dear Brian;
On Jul 21, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2008-07-19 04:21, Ned Freed wrote:
Marshall,
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact
The IETF mailserver will reject this mail because I have the temerity
to use IPv6 without a PTR record (and sorting that out involves
finding another nameserver), so feel free to quote gratuitously...
On Fri Jul 18 19:28:26 2008, Keith Moore wrote:
I'm also tempted to suggest that there be
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 18 jul 2008, at 9:47, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
so while I sympathize with the need for this, and won't argue
against it. I do want to point out that it means that overseas
travelers will be 'stuck' for another day (depending on
On 19 jul 2008, at 16:04, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
The earliest flight I could find to Washington, DC after 5:00 PM
Dublin time is 6:00 AM the next morning.
That's an insane time to fly...
So, a meeting in the US can end at 5:00 PM and people will be able
to get flights to Europe that
Maybe it's just me, but...
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant
amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight
schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, which means that
having sessions on Friday at all poses a problem
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a
significant amount of travel time on weekends without wanting
to add to it. Flight schedules are tightening, thanks to the
cost of fuel, which means that having sessions on Friday at
all poses a problem now, if I want to get
I oppose this experiment.
A better experiment would be to eliminate the Friday morning sessions.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
one thing to measure is how many WG or BOF chairs say Please don't give
us a Friday afternoon session.
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The proposed Friday schedule would be:
0900-1130 Morning Session I
1130-1300 Break
1300-1400 Afternoon Session I
1415-1515 Afternoon Session II
Try
On 18 jul 2008, at 4:45, Scott O. Bradner wrote:
With today's half day on Friday a good percentage of those people who
chose to stay until noon can still catch a flight home that same day
in
most IETF meeting locations (except for people flying across some
ocean).
Actually the meetings
At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant
amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight
schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, which
John's questions, here, go to the basic challenge we constantly face
when there are demands for more resources: Are they really needed, and
if they are, why? If they are not needed, is there a deeper problem that
needs to be addressed?
From external observation, the IETF deals with the issues
Joel,
In many locations this may preclude departure until saturday which
effectively makes the meeting longer by a day.
Hmm. The likelihood of having to depart the next day increases, but the
question is by how much. For the record, my flights out of Minneapolis
leave 15:20, 17:30, or 19:15.
Jari Arkko wrote:
Joel,
In many locations this may preclude departure until saturday which
effectively makes the meeting longer by a day.
Hmm. The likelihood of having to depart the next day increases, but
the question is by how much. For the record, my flights out of
Minneapolis leave
Olafur:
I try to gather some data to see if this would help. My intuition is
that we need 2.5+ hours for some very significant working groups so
these groups would end up with multiple adjacent slots. But, maybe
the smaller slots would help with the things that they are scheduled against.
Marshall:
I do not know of any repository for the attendance at interim
meetings other that the proceedings. Interim meeting minutes are
included with the proceedings of the following IETF meeting.
The reason that the experiment is scoped as proposed deals with the
contract that is already
My response is likely redundant with that of other RAI folks, but I have
a feeling that RAI likely has the highest requirement for additional
meeting slots. And, for us RAI folks, The Friday sessions have never
been considered the least important. Indeed, when both SIP and SIPPING
required 2
Hi,
--On July 18, 2008 7:20:37 AM -0700 Eric Rescorla
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available
meeting time.
I think this is a key point. Rather than expanding the number of slots why
don't we look at using the time we have more
Eric Rescorla wrote:
At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200,
Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
(Fanning the flames...)
I do not understood why WGs are forbidden from conducting
interim or other official extended technical f2f meetings
before, during, or after, an IETF meeting.
Marshall,
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding
Mary Barnes wrote:
In my mind, these additional Friday sessions are really a must for RAI,
What work do RAI groups need to perform during these meetings that
cannot be done on the various RAI mailing lists?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
John's questions, here, go to the basic challenge we constantly face
when there are demands for more resources: Are they really needed, and
if they are, why? If they are not needed, is there a deeper problem that
needs to be addressed?
From external observation, the IETF deals with the issues
Let's hope it's not too little coffee, and that I am in fact mistaken,
but I never said that we have rules that *prevent* teleconferencing. To
elaborate, my understanding is that the rules for teleconferencing are
governed by the rules for interim meetings, which require something like
one
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Barnes, Mary (RICH2:AR00)
Cc: IETF Chair; IETF Announcement list; ietf@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF
73
Mary Barnes wrote:
In my mind, these additional Friday sessions
On 18 jul 2008, at 18:29, Mary Barnes wrote:
The other issue is just the sheer volume of work incoming to RAI -
it's
over 20% of overall IETF drafts per Jari's stats:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/areadistr.html
What is a RAI?
___
Ietf mailing
Mary Barnes wrote:
Dave,
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed
to reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can
look at SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics.
As chairs, we do try to push for completion of work on the
Subject: Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF
73
On 18 jul 2008, at 18:29, Mary Barnes wrote:
The other issue is just the sheer volume of work incoming to RAI -
it's over 20% of overall IETF drafts per Jari's stats:
http://www.arkko.com/tools/stats/areadistr.html
What
Spencer,
IMO, since we see author/editor/review/design team teleconferences in
a fair number of working groups, and these teleconferences aren't
covered by the rules, I'd be in favor of revisiting the rules...
Lets be clear about the different types of calls people might have. A
design team
Meeting Time on Friday for IETF
73
Mary Barnes wrote:
Dave,
There are a few topics for which mailing list discussion has failed to
reach consensus and would really benefit from f2f time. You can look
at SIP WG archives for example for a couple of the hot topics.
As chairs, we do try to push
Hi, Jari,
No disagreement here.
Good to give people a heads-up, but to use the same notification periods for
conference calls and face-to-face interims (which is the way I read the
current (right?) rules) is excessive.
Thanks,
Spencer
Spencer,
IMO, since we see
Do we spend too much time with overviews of drafts that really should
have been read by all attendees beforehand? Maybe it would be good for
the first session on Monday to be an Area Overview session where an
overview of all the latest drafts can be presented to give people a
broader view of
On 17 jul 2008, at 23.33, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are
On 18 jul 2008, at 9:47, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
so while I sympathize with the need for this, and won't argue
against it. I do want to point out that it means that overseas
travelers will be 'stuck' for another day (depending on where in the
world we are, you can normally make an
On Jul 18, 2008, at 3:47 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 17 jul 2008, at 23.33, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about
Fred Baker wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 7:50 AM, Cyrus Daboo wrote:
Rather than expanding the number of slots why don't we look at using
the time we have more efficiently.
Let me throw in v6ops as an example. We are very efficient, I think -
we have 10-15 minute discussions on each of a
The question I have is what are we trying to achieve, i.e., what
problem are we trying to solve?
Is the problem really just that we want all WGs who want a second
(or even third) meeting slot to be able to get one?
Do we have any statistics on how many groups meet at each meeting?
Assuming
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
What might be illuminating is to to a quick poll on the RRG list so we
can correlate home region with:
- flying home after RRG on friday
- flying home after leaving RRG early on friday
- flying home saturday after RRG
I won't attend RRG at all this trip, and I
I support conducting this experiment.
RjS
On Jul 17, 2008, at 4:33 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
At 2:33 PM -0700 7/17/08, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed.
Maybe this could be delayed until the spring meeting in San
Francisco. Many people who will bring their families to Minneapolis
Dear Russ;
On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:33 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots.
On 2008-07-18 09:33, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not
It would be be best if the Fri afternoon slot were filled in early
rather than as the last slots to be filled in. That way people would
have more notice that they're being included in the experiment and
there'd be less of a chance of a rude surprise.
Tony
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On
At 04:33 PM 7/17/2008, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis,
0900-1130 Morning Session I
1130-1300 Break
1300-1400 Afternoon Session I
1415-1515 Afternoon Session II
I support this schedule
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:04AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But please do *design* the experiment - what are you going to
measure to find out if it's a success or failure?
I agree strongly with this latter point.
I've been trying to come up with a measure of success. So far, I
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But please do *design* the experiment - what are you going to
measure to find out if it's a success or failure?
+1
For example, exactly what problems are being targeted?
Have sessions been getting turned down due to a lack of slots? Are they
really sessions
Marshall:
Would there be a refreshment break in the afternoon ?
No. It is just 15 minutes to get between the two one-hour
sessions. The proposed extension to the meeting is 2.25 hours. We
regularly have 2.5 hour sessions with no refreshments, so I do not
see the need for additional food
Is there a cost implication for stripping down the network and other
facilities?
This usually disappears pretty promptly on Friday, presumably allowing it to
be packed up for shipping and the associated staff/volunteers to travel on
the Friday.
If we extend into the mid afternoon, do we
Brian:
The proposed Friday schedule would be:
0900-1130 Morning Session I
1130-1300 Break
1300-1400 Afternoon Session I
1415-1515 Afternoon Session II
Try it. We've been having periodical email arguments about Friday
afternoon for years; an experiment is the best way to
One measurement would be the number of conflicts that cannot be resolved
with and without the extra slots.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:15:04AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But please do *design* the experiment - what are
At 17:33 17/07/2008, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and
we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face
meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs
competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not
Dear Russ;
After our discussions on this in San Jose, I spent a little time
thinking of options for extra meeting time. Here are some more
considered thoughts, focusing mostly on costs and meeting logistics,
and intended to engender further discussion. I will be ruthless in
doing back of
Olafur,
If you recall the Paris meeting, we did try a different mixture
of session lengths, and it caused quite some scheduling problems.
I'd have to dig out some old email for the details, but it
was definitely a problem. So after Paris, we stuck to the late
dinner schedule, but went back to a
--On Thursday, 17 July, 2008 18:19 -0400 Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be be best if the Fri afternoon slot were filled in
early rather than as the last slots to be filled in. That way
people would have more notice that they're being included in
the experiment and there'd be
an observation:
With today's half day on Friday a good percentage of those people who
chose to stay until noon can still catch a flight home that same day in
most IETF meeting locations (except for people flying across some
ocean).
Moving the end time on Friday until 15:15 would cut that
what is interesting to me is the weekend factor.
for nearly a decade, I've been going to mtgs the
wkend before the start of IETF - workshops, training sessions,
sidebars, RSSAC mtgs, etc.
about five years ago, the -other- suite of interesting/useful
meetings started occuring the weekend -after-
88 matches
Mail list logo
