Hello, I was disappointed by the number of overlapping sessions for security and having to choose between working group sessions that I would have liked to attend. This did impact some working groups that suffered from light attendance that included having less regular participants. When I asked about this, I was told the same number of slots were available, so it was a conflict resolution issue. Perhaps we need to extend the number of slots when Friday is added back to help with conflicts. I will have to read the minutes or watch recorded sessions for a few meetings that I was interested to attend. Best regards, Kathleen Sent from my mobile device > On Nov 10, 2018, at 5:18 AM, Job Snijders <job@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear all, > > I actually liked the approach and would like to encourage the IESG to repeat the experiment a few more times. > > Between the normal work week (the week before IETF), traveling to IETF, the hackathon, IEPG, and the IETF meeting itself you’ll easily end up being busy for 12 days in a row. This is not healthy - we owe it to ourselves to foster an environment that encourages rest as much as it encourages working together. > > Making the Friday optional (like at IETF103) increases the chances of people getting home for a full weekend of downtime.. > > I see no risk of “the Thursday becoming the new Friday”, to me the slippery slope argument makes no sense without supporting data. > > Kind regards, > > Job
