Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

I'd even like to see the Nomcom ask IESG candidates whether they
consider unbounded meeting-length creep acceptable and what they
intend to do about it.

To be very honest, the number of things we can do is pretty limited.

The number of meeting slots is a more-or-less-fixed number; we can change the number of them in a few ways, but once we have picked a number of days and rented a set of meeting rooms, this is largely about deciding how we will use a fixed resource. We can talk about having more one-hour slots and less two-hour slots, putting more slots into a day by staying later into the evening, putting more slots into the day by running more of them in parallel (more meeting rooms), or extend the duration of the meeting. Or, we can tell working groups that they can't have as many meetings as they would like.

I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is that we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be <= that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain downsides. Stanislaus doesn't like the solution and IMHO has not proposed a solution that tells us how to better manage the demands on the resource.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]