> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Andrew G. Malis > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:58 PM > To: Fred Baker > Cc: John C Klensin; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Fix the Friday attendance bug: make the > technical plenary the last IETF session, like it was before > > The IETF meetings have evolved over time. There are now more > activities on Sunday than there used to be. There used to be an > opening plenary on Monday. We used to have WG sessions in the evening > after dinner. There used to be one long plenary on Wednesday evening, > starting at 7:30 PM. When we split the plenary into two, we initially > flip-flopped the two plenaries between Wednesday and Thursday from one > meeting to the next. We used to have more one-hour meetings than we > have now (or at least it seems that way). > > My point is that nothing is set in stone, and the meetings can and > should evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the IETF. > > Personally, I would like to see more one-hour sessions than we have > now - that would force presentations and discussions to be shorter and > more focused. That would be great. It would allow real BoFs, as well, where we can quickly gauge community interest. But until we reduce the 6 hours spent on the two Plenaries, we're being silly. -d > And only allow one WG session per meeting. As has been > noted elsewhere, work tends to expand to fill the time alloted to it. > Perhaps this will allow us to get back to a model where most people > can plan to fly home on Friday, and Friday will be reserved for > specific activities, such as the RRG and WGs that specifically want > more time and are willing to meet on Friday, so that people can plan > their travel well in advance to be able to take advantage of > discounted fares. > > Cheers, > Andy > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Fred Baker <fred@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf