I think it would be good to understand how/if the experiment influenced
attendance.
I know there is a good community discussion that can/should be had on
why attendance was so low in Bangkok, and that how the experiment may or
may not have contributed to this is just part of that discussion.
Even though we don't have a BCP on ietf meeting week structure, I'd
still be interested in hearing why BCP93 wasn't used for the process
experiment. Had it been, we would have a better idea of what metrics
should be collected and would be used to gauge success of this experiment.
Lou
FWIW my personal feeling is that IETFs are a huge investment of time and
resources, and shortening our face-to-face time diminishes the "ROI" on
attendance. Informal meeting time *is* very important, but parallel
side/informal meetings have always taken place and won't/don't benefit
from a dedicated day to warrant impacting formal meeting time.
If the meeting is too long for the hackathon+ietf attendees, I
personally would love to see an experiment that runs the hackaton all
week in parallel with the meetings -- and do a hackathon 'prize' award
in the IETF plenary.
On 11/10/2018 10:07 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Thanks for starting the thread, Andy. And thanks all for the feedback! Keep it coming. The IESG will be sending a note around in a few days about start/end days and times for IETF 104 and will be following up with more detailed agenda plans a bit later after we have a chance to collect more feedback.
People are also welcome to send feedback to iesg@xxxxxxxx as you prefer.
Alissa
On Nov 10, 2018, at 4:14 PM, 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
