On Oct 17, 2012, at 4:19 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> o Co-location with RIPE appeared useful. I agree with you Joel that >> tighter packing would have made a difference. I met some people who >> noted they will not attend, but probably would have attended if it >> was during the week. Co-locating individual WG interims with RIPEs >> and NANOGs seems like a useful concept to consider in the future. > > ripe/foonog would not appreciate a meeting in schedule conflict. would ietf appreciate a foonog meeting scheduled in conflict with and at the same venue as an ietf meeting? One hopes he was looking for constructive engagement, such as IETF and IRTF do during an IETF meeting. The interspersed meeting is on the same agenda as all of the other meetings, and not on a separate track. The IETF doesn't promise IRTF meeting slots, but if slots are available, it makes them available.