John, > If we really > have potential surplus meeting hours, is it time to reconsider > the Friday decision, trying to use possible meeting slots > (including time recovered by reducing the number of plenaries) > efficiently enough to return to a four-day schedule? Lets talk about the concept of surplus hours, and constraints around that. The experiment in Buenos Aires and now in Berlin is to move the meeting one hour later, but not to change the length of the meeting. This may or may not work well, depending on whether you tend to stay up late and wake up late, local restaurant schedules vs break and dinner times, etc. But it doesn’t change the amount of meeting time, so no time wasted/gained as such. However, there’s clearly a tradeoff between having longer days vs. longer week. Although, of course, there’s some human limits on how long people in practice can go on (+ the design team dinners, directorate breakfasts, and such). And there’s another tradeoff between more compressed WG time vs. length of the overall meeting time. I have some personal opinions about these things, but ultimately, what does the community want to do? Jari
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail