| That survey says that 62% of people who responded had a conflict.
The problem with only relying on chair assessment of the conflicts is that generally they underestimate the degree of interest overlap.
A better approach might be to ask people at registration what sessions they needed to attend. That would allow a statistical basis to be applied in the design of the agenda, rather than an informal guess. It might also provide encouragement to register and perhaps pay (I.e. commit to attend) earlier.
Stewart Sent from my iPad Hi Loa,
We have multiple sources of feedback. Individual complaints are one and the meeting survey is another. See Q11-13 at
Of course, the point of publishing the preliminary agenda (what we did last week) is to solicit even further feedback before the agenda is finalized..
Alissa On Feb 25, 2019, at 3:34 AM, Loa Andersson < loa@xxxxx> wrote: Folks,I strongly agree with Stewart Lou, I think that we sent a strong messageto the IESG that any experiment that decreases the the number ofavailable slots is causing problem and should be avoided. Instead wehave another such experiment :(.Stewart, you are not alone, but I think what you see is that more andmore people feel that they are not listen too, because the opinions wehave is not what the people that should list don't want to hear them./LoaOn 2019-02-24 19:48, Lou Berger 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
-- Loa Andersson email: loa@xxxxxSenior MPLS ExpertBronze Dragon Consulting phone: +46 739 81 21 64
|
