--On Tuesday, 10 November, 2009 09:59 -0800 Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>...
> <rant> I'm soooo tired of this line of argumentation. Sunday
> is part of the (religious as well as secular) weekend for some
> cultures, too. We've dealt with (or ignored) this reality for
> decades. If we're going to trample on sensitivities, we may
> as well be equal-opportunity about it. </rant>
>...
Randy,
I'm never one to advocate making decisions based on perceived
political correctness or real or imaginary sensitivities, so let
me explain.
First of all, just based on numbers of people affected, I
believe that the argument against wiping out a pair of adjacent
weekends is much more compelling than any religious or cultural
argument. That said, I have never heard of people coming in
only on Monday because of (religious or secular) constraints
with Sunday. I have seen people cut out Friday morning, or
even earlier, because of such constraints. So the issue is
real. That doesn't mean that we should decide not to do Friday
(or Saturday, or Sunday, or Monday) sessions because of those
people. It does suggest that we should consider the topic when
we are making choices.
My much greater concern, as I tried to make clear, is where we
draw the line about expanding meetings. Maybe the right answer
is that we stop after the Thursday evening plenary. Maybe
before noon on Friday. Maybe the end of the day Friday. Maybe
we should be expanding into the following week. Maybe the ITU
is right and SG meetings lasting two or three weeks are
reasonable. But, sooner or later, we need to stop and start
prioritizing. And I want to try to make sure that any "keep
people around longer" plan considers the alternate hypothesis
that maybe we have trying to hold more hours or days of meetings
than we can really sustain.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf