On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:43:50AM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > Ditto on the longer slots. > > The biggest issue I see in these experiments, though, is that we find out > about them very late in the game, after we have paid for travel > arrangements and arranged side meetings guessing at what the IETF will > do. In my case, we planned two RSSAC caucus working meetings on the guess > that IETF slots would start at 9:30, and it turns out that they start at > 9:00, and scheduled a company meeting Friday-Sunday following on the My understanding (could be wrong) is that while the start time is influenced by many factors, a big factor is what WG session requests actually come in. E.g., if you are doing morning 2.5-hour sessions, then a 9:30 start can work well, but if you have to squeeze in 2-hour plus 1-hour sessions, that basically forces a 9:00 start. And of course the WGs won't know how much time they need incredibly far in advance, so it's a hard problem. > assumption that Friday would be open, and are now flexing those > arrangements given that it conflicts with important working groups. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/H64AuTYhxsGqM1a8BfTkszCZyso seemed pretty clear that Friday would have sesions until lunchtime or mid-afternoon. > I miss the 2.5 hour slots, and I deeply wish that people could make rational predictions about how the IETF week will run before they purchase travel. > > The IESG is important. Earth to IESG: there is another 1000 people at every meeting that is also important. I of course can't speak for everyone, but as far as I personally am concerned, if the only conflict between two WGs is that they share me as responsible AD but the overlap is otherwise minimal, I'm willing to accept that I can't be at both. The main input into the scheduling is the list of conflicts that the WG chairs provide. If you are seeing bad conflicts, please let the relevant WG chairs know about it! -Ben > Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways... > > > On Feb 24, 2019, at 8:19 AM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Same here. I also miss the 2 1/2 hour slots. > > > > Bob > > > > > >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> nope. Couldn't agree me more. These experiments seem to me to be reducing the value of the meetings. > >> > >> Yes, people meet on their own during the meeting, but this has always worked pretty well in self organizing ways - and having rooms formally available for this *is* helpful in this regard. > >> > >> Lou > >> > >>> On 2/24/2019 3:24 AM, Stewart Bryant wrote: > >>> Am I alone I wishing that the IESG had used this time to address the unacceptable number of scheduling conflicts that exist in the meeting agenda? > >>> > >>> Stewart > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPad > >>> > >>>> On 23 Feb 2019, at 11:13, Alissa Cooper <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you, Secretariat. > >>>> > >>>> We got a bunch of feedback after the last meeting (and previously) that people want to experiment with open time in the schedule. We’re trying it on Wednesday this time. Depending on how people like it we can try something different or not at future meetings. > >>>> > >>>> Alissa > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 23, 2019, at 12:08 AM, IETF Agenda <agenda@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi everyone, > >>>>> > >>>>> Our message earlier today announcing the preliminary agenda [1] was missing some further context. As previously mentioned by Alissa after IETF 103 [2], the IESG wanted to continue the unstructured time experiment at IETF 104. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wednesday's schedule has regular sessions until 13:20, unstructured time in the afternoon, and the plenary in the evening at 17:10. This leaves almost four hours of unstructured time for attendees to reserve for side meetings. During this period, there will also be one unique Technology Deep Dive session with the acronym WGTLGO [3]. > >>>>> > >>>>> Monday through Friday, we will have two rooms available for attendees to reserve for side meetings as usual. On Wednesday afternoon, we will have five rooms available for side meetings. Further details about how to sign up for these rooms will be announced shortly. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, > >>>>> IETF Secretariat > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/_JeP2fQ7rHPosZWpNtpl8I_uL5U > >>>>> [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/H64AuTYhxsGqM1a8BfTkszCZyso > >>>>> [3] https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf104-bofs/ > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 104all mailing list > >>>>> 104all@xxxxxxxx > >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/104all > >>> > >> > > >
