|
Kyle – It seems to me that your summary has overlooked one key point. As per the announcement: <snip> 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. <end snip> And part of your response is: <snip> The secretariat can't address the problem of too many (or too long) WG sessions, <end snip> Presumably the alternative could have been to have another slot in the afternoon on Wednesday for WG meetings – which would have provided more flexibility in
avoiding conflicts. Without taking sides, I think the question is whether the introduction of “unstructured time” is adding or subtracting value. Les From: Recentattendees <recentattendees-bounces@xxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Kyle Rose There seem to be two separate issues here: 1. The meeting ends on Friday. 2. There is some combination of too few slots, too many (or too long) WG session requests, and not enough information about meaningful conflicts to construct a viable schedule. #2 is a problem that the secretariat can partially address through changes to the conflict declaration process. For example, by allowing chairs to specify *individuals* who need to be at particular sessions because they're presenting or
are heavily involved in work, rather than via the working group proxy, which may (and does IME) encode preference as well as need, may become stale over the course of meetings, and often fails to capture critical conflicts. This is a hard problem, but if it's
possible to get a viable schedule for the requested WG sessions given the number of slots, there is a solution. The secretariat can't address the problem of too many (or too long) WG sessions, because it's a judgment call on the part of those involved in the WGs. Perhaps sponsoring ADs can get more involved in deciding whether a WG really needs to
consume an official meeting slot, or whether they really need as much time as requested for in-person work. This is also a hard problem, but if we're going to make the most efficient use of limited official in-person meeting time, hard choices will need to
be made. (IMO, leave the draft status updates to the mailing list. Use the meeting for issues chosen in advance that will benefit from in-person discussion and collaboration.) #1, by contrast, is an easy problem to solve. Your WG can be assigned to a slot anywhere from Monday to Friday at the secretariat's discretion. Therefore: don't schedule your return trip until late on Friday at the earliest, or don't complain
when you are scheduled to leave before the meeting ends. Which is on Friday. Seems straightforward. Kyle On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 12:08 AM IETF Agenda <agenda@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
