+1 On top of what Kathleen, I also want to add that reading the notes and/or watching the video (which is a great resource) does not allow you to participate in the discussion and provide your humming :-) Cheers, Max > On Nov 10, 2018, at 8:47 PM, Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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 >
