Wes Hardaker <wjhns1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I have yet to see any comments on the fact that we have O(30) working
>> groups ask not to be scheduled on Fridays every single meeting. One of
>> my personal hopes for this experiment is that we learn whether we can
>> avoid these requests (and the consequent scheduling complications,
>> which are non-trivial) by simply removing the broadly unwanted Friday
>> slots from consideration altogether.
> Or the other option is to simply overbook ourselves from M-Th. Which
> would people prefer?
> 1) Give in to the longer and longer IETF sessions as we need to get
> there earlier and earlier. [It's certainly hitting me personally.]
> 2) Having *and attending* meetings on Friday
> 3) Or cramming more sessions in during the rest of the week (e.g.,
> throwing out the social and Tuesday and the Meet-n-greet on Thursday)
> and having an additional slots then?
4) every WG gets 1 hr with conflicts sorted out.
I read in the thread somewhere that we have some 260hours of meeting time
available, and 120 WG.
(I could go look it up, but 9hr * 8 slots * 4 days = 288)
That leaves a second hour (where conflicts would mostly be ignored) for nearly
every WG, and a few hours left over. Many groups won't need a second
hour, and some like 6man regularly take 4 hours.
I understand that 103 will eliminate 2.5 hour slots, and will have more 1hr
slots. This is good, and I think that this will actually be where the more
interesting results of the experient are.
It would be nice if there was a survey asking people about WG conflicts for 101,
102 and 103. (We could go back further, but remembering 101 will be hard
enough)
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] mcr@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
