I also flew home Friday morning. Interestingly, some of my colleagues actually did plan to use Friday, and this turns out to have been (arguably) a mistake, although I'm really glad to be home.. I think that what we should do is to have the experiment mid-week, not at the end of the week, and to make Friday a regular meeting day, not a special day that ends early.
As for the conflicts, yes, they were really, really bad. I wonder if people would be willing to participate in a poll about this, for the purposes of data collection. The basic idea would be to just make a list of all the slots for IETF 103, and all the meetings in the slots, and then, for each meeting, have people check "attended," "needed to attend but couldn't," "would have attended but couldn't," "might have attended" or "wouldn't have attended". And then crunch the numbers to see how close to optimal we came.
Right now the way conflict resolution is done is totally unscientific, and seems to have more to do with AD availability than effective use of meeting time by other participants. I think that prioritizing for AD availability is not a bad thing to do, but in principle ADs aren't doing work in these meetings—they're there as moderators (which is work, to be sure, but not what I mean). Moderating isn't a bad thing, but it shouldn't be prioritized over doing work. In principle working group chairs are supposed to be know what they are doing and do it; if they are not, that's actually a problem. Requiring ADs to attend every working group meeting for working groups they're responsible for sounds really good from a management checking-of-boxes perspective, but I'm not convinced that it's actually the best use of AD time.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:20 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/11/2018 09:14, Andrew G. Malis wrote:
> I would like to start a discussion on the Friday experiment. I, for one,
> thought that it was a resounding failure.
Agreed.
> My personal hope is that this experiment will not be repeated, and we go
> back to our previous meeting agenda.
I'd encourage the IESG to consider a similar approach but
never on the last day of the meeting. My suggestion is to
have one or more of Tue/Wed/Thu mornings with no (or few)
WG sessions scheduled.
Cheers,
S.
PS: As a data point, I booked a flight home departing on
Friday morning. That precluded taking part in Friday fun.
Given the probabilities, I'd pick being home over maybe
having a good Friday meeting every time.
>
> Cheers,
> Andy
>
