At Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:41:15 +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > Maybe it's just me, but... > > I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a significant > amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add to it. Flight > schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel, which means that > having sessions on Friday at all poses a problem now, if I want to get > back by Saturday. Having afternoon sessions would put a nail in that > coffin. I haven't decided whether I agree with Eliot entirely, but I think he raises some good points here. I would add two more: 1. I've attended IETFs where there was a meeting on Friday all day (e.g., the P2PSIP Ad Hoc at IETF 64) and it seemed to me that people were pretty wiped at that point, so even though they felt that they had to show up, I'm not sure much got done. 2. People's ability to meet tends to expand to fill out the available meeting time. With these two points in mind, It would be nice to have some metric of success that's more than just people showing up to the meetings. Unfortunately, I don't have such a metric. :( > I propose two alternative experiments: > > 1. Required agendas and Approval > > No session can be approved without a posted agenda. Many agendas are > late, which makes it difficult for people to know where they have to be > and when. I completely agree with this. Before each IETF I attend I use automated tools (http://tools.ietf.org/tools/getdrafts/) to suck down each draft on the agenda and I regularly find a large fraction of WGs with missing agendas. As of today, the following WGs have no agenda: softwire, v6ops, mip4, dime, l3vpn, idnabis, l2vpn, ntp, savi, rtgwg, ecrit, capwap, radext, opsawg, rtgarea, pkix, opsec, isis, keyprov, vcarddav, netmod, pce, saag, grow, autoconf It's also not just an issue of knowing where to be and when but of getting prepared. It helps to know in advance which drafts you need to read. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf