--On Monday, 22 May, 2006 23:14 +0200 Lars Eggert
<lars.eggert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 22, 2006, at 21:42, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
>> FWIW - if this is the case, this policy is in the
>> disadvantage of the participants coming from out of North
>> America for both IEEE and IETF meetings. We shall be obliged
>> to do two trips instead of one which doubles airfare costs
>> and requires from us to at least one supplemental
>> weekend on the road. Having the IEEE and IETF meetings
>> scheduled in consecutive weeks is more convenient.
>
> Let me second this - different meetings on adjacent dates are
> good *if* they are geographically close and thus eliminate or
> reduce travel.
>
> And this in independent of which country you are based in -
> adjacent meetings in, say, Europe, reduce travel for North
> Americans, too.
>
> (I do realize that this complicates the scheduling algorithm
> though.)
Gentlemen, I suppose that different of us react to meetings in
different ways and, clearly, some meetings are more stressful
than others. But, speaking personally...
(1) It was worse when I was on the IESG and then on the IAB, but
I still finish a week of IETF so totally exhausted and generally
wasted that my brain is just not good for much of anything for
several days thereafter. I don't know that I need a full week
to recover now --maybe I could do it in four or five days-- but
when I had IAB responsibilities to add on to what I do now, the
need to puLL notes together and plan actions, plus recovery
time, really did take out a week. Certainly I could get to a
meeting the following Monday if it was more or less in the same
vicinity, but my experience was that IETF work suffered and my
level of effective participation in the other meeting was up
there with that of the average zombie.
(2) Given the usual last-minute burst of drafts before an IETF
meeting, I've discovered that, if I am trying to track more than
a couple of WGs closely, I need most of the week before IETF to
study drafts, prepare comments, etc. Especially when WG
sessions I care about conflict, I often need to read all of the
drafts of both, and make notes, to figure out where I need to
spend my time.
So, from my perspective, that one-week buffer (or at least a
four or five day one exclusive of possible travel time) is
needed if I am to actively participate in two nearly-adjacent
meetings. If I were going to one or both meetings just to sit
there, rather than being actively and intensely involved, it
would be different and I'd want the meetings as close together
as possible.
YMMD, of course.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf