On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:03:51AM +0900, Stanislav Shalunov wrote: > If we have WG meetings on Friday, technical plenary should be Friday > afternoon. If Friday is not good enough for technical plenary, it's not > good enough for WGs. I can agree with that claim. > [If you're right about the duration being unbearable, one outcome might > be low attendance of the technical plenary. That would cost us one > poorly attended technical plenary and would put to rest the idea that > Friday is a normal day. A poorly attended technical plenary would cost > us roughly triple the damage we get from poorly attended WGs on Friday > and would thus be recouped within a year.] That sounds like the proposal to have a trial, and see what happens. Such a proposal doesn't sound like a terrible idea to me. The conclusion of such a poorly-attended plenary should, of course, be that Friday afternoons are not a good meeting time, and that therefore the large meetings need to be reduced in size. Alternatively, of course, we could reduce them in number. Perhaps the One Giant Meeting of Everybody doesn't need to happen three times a year. Some WGs are already using the virtual interim rules to schedule a lot of virtual interim meetings. If we did more of that, perhaps the larger meetings could be reduced in number, and the number of sessions WGs take in the large meetings could also be reduced in number or duration or both. I might be willing to give up two entire weekends if I could be confident I wouldn't have to do it three times a year. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx Shinkuro, Inc. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf