Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-19 Thread Lixia Zhang
On 1/17/02 12:03 PM, Michael Mealling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... The two negatives are that a) some people do not work on Sunday, and 2) those currently traveling to the IETF on Sunday would be forced to do it on Saturday. That said, there are enough people who take advantage of the

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-19 Thread Ian Cooper
--On Saturday, January 19, 2002 17:32 -0800 Lixia Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If talking personal preference... I would rather prefer not to have anything officially scheduled on Sunday since that fundamentally requires we leave for the trip one day earlier. Friday is not too good

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Rodney Thayer
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

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Dave Crocker
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 not

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Michael Mealling
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 an

RE: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Michel Py
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 more on

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
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.

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Keith Moore
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 currently

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Randy Bush
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... aol me too /aol randy

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Bob Hinden
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 to

Re: comments on Friday scheduling (was Plenaries at IETF 53)

2002-01-17 Thread Einar Stefferud
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,