On 2011-08-02 11:35, David Kessens wrote: > Margaret, > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:02:22PM -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >> If we don't want to hold meetings on Friday afternoons due to conflicts, >> I'd much rather see us eliminate one of the plenaries and hold meetings >> during that time slot. > > I was already planning to bring this up again in the IAB, but now that you > mention it here, I fully agree! iirc, the second plenary was invented (partly be me, I suspect) because there was no other session where cross-area architectural topics could be discussed Parallel sessions for such topics are unsuitable, because of clashes for almost everybody. The situation now seems to be that we have such a plenary session automatically, and if there isn't an important architectural topic, we invent one to fill the time. That seems backwards. Maybe the IAB and the IRTF should bid for a plenary slot only when they have an important cross-area topic to propose, and if there isn't a topic, there isn't a plenary. That would be more like a plenary BOF. In any case, the IRTF Report, IAB Report and RSOC Report could certainly be made in the other plenary. Brian _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf