-1. That's adding significant pain, as some will have to adjust their schedules for the plenary, adjust back to 'normal', and then re-adjust for the meeting week. I'd much rather see the IESG focus on establishing a meaningful threshold for WGs when they request scarce resources -- whether it be virtual or in-person meeting time, reviewer time, AD time, or RFC Editor effort. Cheers. > On 3 Sep 2021, at 2:41 am, IETF Chair <chair@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > fully online meetings have a shorter length of day, which complicates > scheduling sessions to minimize conflicts, compared to an in-person > meeting with longer meeting days. The lack of travel arrangements also > reduces the pressure to hold all events in a single week. However, > scheduling all events in a single week both reduces the impact on > attendees' schedules and encourages cross-review of ideas. Past survey > data suggest both broad satisfaction with the current format and > concern about the number of scheduling conflicts. > > The plenary offers a unique opportunity to maximize benefits and > minimize costs. This single event consumes an entire 2-3 hour slot of > the meeting week across all tracks. Moving the plenary outside the > meeting week thus opens up eight long slots that can be used to > schedule other meetings. The experiment will test the hypothesis that > the plenary is compelling enough to draw attendees independently of the > rest of the meeting. > > *** Proposal > > For IETF 112, the plenary will occur on the Wednesday before the meeting > week (3 November 2021), in the time slot of 13:30-15:00 UTC, or > 14:30-16:00 Madrid time. At notable extremes, this begins at 05:30 in > San Francisco and ends at 02:00 in Sydney, with some of the less > popular hours over the Pacific. > > *** Feedback > > The IESG invites feedback to the IESG mailing list > (iesg@xxxxxxxx), especially if this proposal would change your ability > to attend the plenary. Such feedback would be most useful if received > within two weeks of the date of this email, as the IESG will then > finalize the decision whether to proceed with the experiment. Strong > feedback indicating the experiment would reduce the community’s ability > to attend the plenary might cause its cancellation. > > *** Success Criteria > > The IESG will evaluate the success of this experiment based on the > following criteria after its conclusion, in consultation with the > community. > > * An improvement in survey responses reporting session conflicts > compared to previous IETF online meetings > > * Positive response to a new survey question about subjective > satisfaction with the format change > > * Elimination of a ninth track, and a reduction in formal conflicts in > the final agenda compared to previous online meetings > > * Little or no reduction in plenary attendance (< 15%) compared to other > online plenaries in European time zones (i.e., IETF 108 and 110) > > * The subjective experience of the IESG and Secretariat in attempting to > minimize conflicts during IETF 112 > > This does not imply that all of these metrics must show > improvement for the experiment to be considered a success, or that > regression in any of them would indicate failure. The relative weights > of these considerations are a subject for IESG discussion and community > consultation. > > Lars Eggert > IETF Chair, on behalf of the IESG > > > _______________________________________________ > IETF-Announce mailing list > IETF-Announce@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
