On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:35:44PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That question stymied me, so I just selected "No change."
I thought that was clear. My problem is what "herring bone" seating layout is. I don't understand why the question is asked either. Why is it important whether people attended those sessions? Stig > > John > > -- original message -- > Subject: Re: IETF 63 On-line Survey > From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 08/17/2005 3:26 pm > > Spencer Dawkins wrote: > > > Would you prefer longer meetings or shorter meetings? > > Shorter meetings with more overlaps > > No change > > Longer meetings with fewer overlaps > > > > means! I'm answering it, assuming that it refers to the one-hour > > sessions that sometimes get doubled-up into two-hour sessions, but if > > you mean something else, please let us know. > > I interpreted it as having a short IETF meeting (e.g. mon-thu) but with lots > of parallel WG meetings vs. longer IETF meeting (e.g. sun-fri) but with less > parallel WG meetings. > > So I guess that just shows how people have a different understanding > of what was being asked. > > --Jari > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
