It worked for us (T2TRG). But then we pretty aggressively went for making it work; planning started long before IETF102. Limited support for remote presentations could have been a showstopper, but wasn’t for us. The scheduling was weird: We were luckily able to incorporate a competing side meeting as one of our breakouts. We were just lucky here that other side meetings did not happen. I have no idea why we had to stop on 13:20 (again, this happened to work for us, but that is another coincidence). Summarizing, I don’t think all this luck can be repeated; the assumption of the experiment seems to have been that the entire IETF neatly splits into side meetings that can be scheduled as ships in the dark. I really like the idea of having some space for more in-depth work, but it will need to become first-class, both wrt support and wrt scheduling. (For Prague, we are now thinking about starting on Wednesday in the week before the IETF. Can we have rooms for that?) Grüße, Carsten > On Nov 10, 2018, at 16:14, Andrew G. Malis <agmalis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I would like to start a discussion on the Friday experiment. I, for one, thought that it was a resounding failure. Based on the room reservations in the meeting wiki, there were 8 rooms available on Friday, but only 5 side meetings, most of which were for only an hour or two, which was a huge underutilization of the resources that the IETF was paying for. > > The experiment also had at least two detrimental effects on the IETF agenda: > > - Many WGs had less time than was needed to address the topics or drafts that needed discussion > > - There were a number of unfortunate conficts, expecially in the Routing area. > > My personal hope is that this experiment will not be repeated, and we go back to our previous meeting agenda. > > Cheers, > Andy >
