+1
-hadriel
On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
+1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
john
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
On 8/23/11 03:25 , Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this
+1 for me as well for either proposed new schedule.
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 2:04 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
+1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
john
--On
On Aug 23, 2011, at 6:48 AM, IETF Chair wrote:
The important dates page for the meeting
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82 shows a date for
the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda. We try very hard to make
no changes after the final agenda date. Sometimes
+1. I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.
john
--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
l...@cisco.com wrote:
On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is
Russ,
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
In principle this
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.
Fully agree. We
Glen,
On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then
Shane:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
At 04:24 PM 8/22/2011, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF
82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using
this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00
At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF
82. The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using
this schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session
On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0400 8/22/11, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday,
On 8/22/11 11:24 PM, IETF Chair wrote:
The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82. The
IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this
schedule:
9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
14 matches
Mail list logo
