Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Dear Ray (offlist)
Welcome to the wonderful world of guessing geek behavior.
I agree with Olafur on the symptom (people basically take December
and/or January off), but wonder whether allowing more time will make
any difference - we seem to produce about half the drafts within two
weeks of a cutoff, no matter how long the interval between meetings
is, and if we want to get more work done, having more deadlines (as
happens when people must produce a document before an interim meeting)
seems more helpful.
Deadlines are great - if it weren't for the last minute, nothing would
get done. I wish folks would abide by them, especially getting agendas
and presentations in. People want to know when and where, but most
importantly they want to know "why" and "why" is the agenda.
Registrations spike when the agenda begins to shape up. I think we
would get more onsite attendance if the agenda could be promulgated earlier.
Ray
But I, too, am guessing what geeks really do, so I'll leave that to
the professionals Good luck! :-)
Thanks,
Spencer
From: "Ray Pelletier" <rpelletier@xxxxxxxx>
Ólafur Guðmundsson wrote:
Ray,
Thanks for doing this it helps a lot.
I think the selection criteria needs one more variable:
Time between meetings.
I agree. I was particularly concerned with the Dec to March timeframe
as I believed there would be lower productivity during that period
leading up to the March meeting possibly resulting in less draft
progress. I had computed the weeks in between but will revisit the
spacing with the other feedback. Thanks
Ray
With 3 meetings a year 122 days is about right, but some times during
the
year are less productive than others so we should try to space the
meetings out longer in those time periods.
In my experience the productivity between winter and spring meetings
is the
lowest, due to multiple global holidays and corporate end of year
issues, as well as people in many countries, having to file their
taxes in this period.
I would like to see longer interval between these two meetings.
In the current schedule between
Jul/2008 to Dec/2008 is 133
Dec/2008 to Mar/2009 is 105
Mar/2009 to Aug/2009 is 133
These meetings need to be better spaced.
IMHO, good spacing of meetings should be as an important criteria as
conflicts with other organizations.
Olafur
At 06:58 17/05/2006, Ray Pelletier wrote:
All;
This is a 1 week Last Call for feedback on Version 01 proposed 2008
- 1010 IETF Meeting dates. The IAOC anticipates taking action to
formally adopt dates on 25 May 2006. These dates differ from the
originally proposed dates based upon community feedback, a review of
meeting dates of those organizations on the Clash List and
maintenance of a reasonably similar period between meetings. While
every effort was made to avoid conflicts where known, it was not
always possible with those organizations in the "should avoid"
category. Your feedback to iad@xxxxxxxx on conflicts with these
dates would be appreciated.
Proposed 2008 - 2010 meeting dates:
2008
IETF 71 Mar 30 - Apr 4
IETF 72 Jul 27 - Aug 1
IETF 73 Dec 7 - 12
2009
IETF 74 Mar 22 - 27
IETF 75 Aug 2 - 7
IETF 76 Dec 6 - 11
2010
IETF 77 Mar 28 - Apr 2
IETF 78 Jul 25 - 30
IETF 79 Dec 5 - 10
Our findings of the schedule of other organization's meetings can be
found at: http://www.ietf.org/meetings/events.cal.html .
Thanks for your assistance.
Ray Pelletier
IAD
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf