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
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 time slot.
Original Message -
From: David Kessens david.kess...@nsn.com
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
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
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
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 4.5
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 wrong with
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 08:05, Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com 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
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 16:38 -0500 Adam Roach
a...@nostrum.com 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
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 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 even
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
On 2011-08-03 05:45, Mark Nottingham wrote:
snip
... Some people will still doubtless complain.
/snip
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
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
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
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com 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
Interesting proposal. It could be as proposed with 3 sessions or with 2
sessions and 1/2 hour break between Session I and II depending on the needs
(both would still give 4h30 of meeting):
08:30-11:00 Session I
11:30-13:30 Session II
Thanks,
-dimitri.
-Original Message-
From:
On Aug 1, 2011, at 9:39 AM, John Leslie wrote:
Thomas Nadeau tnad...@lucidvision.com 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
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 would
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
Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com 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
On 8/1/11 5:14 PM, Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com 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
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 III
I really like
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 is
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,
+1 with Adam
- Original Message -
From: Adam Roach [mailto:a...@nostrum.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 04:38 PM
To: Russ Housley hous...@vigilsec.com
Cc: IETF ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
I'd like to join the sparse voices in speaking out
: Re: A modest proposal for Friday meeting schedule
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
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
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
--On Monday, August 01, 2011 19:02 -0400 Margaret Wasserman
m...@lilacglade.org 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
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
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
+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
32 matches
Mail list logo
