(cutting down the cc list...) On 25/02/2019 21:24, Kyle Rose wrote: > How widespread of a problem is this? Most of the groups I'm involved in > comprise folks who have the same conflicts I do, because we're all working > in the same general areas. There are also 5 mornings and 4 or 5 evenings > (if you count Sunday) available for cross-functional collaborative work > that can't fit elsewhere. I suppose some attendees are enough in-demand > that those are all spoken for, but if those folks are outliers, I'm not > sure their needs should drive meeting policy. To figure this out, we really > need some survey of the attendees to find out how *uniquely* helpful the > unstructured time slots are to resolving conflicts for collaboration. FWIW, I am a fan of unstructured time (but would prefer it early mornings:-). My main reason is I think we do waste a lot of expensive f2f time in WG sessions and could do better organising ourselves. That may turn out correct or not, but I do think it's a defensible proposition, worth testing if the IESG wanna experiment with that. That said, I think Kyle makes some reasonable points above, except that it is far too early to survey people to see if they do like unstructured time. This is the 2nd experiment and the first, involving a Friday, was never gonna work I reckon. Perhaps this one will fail too, but we can't yet know. Maybe a survey after 3-4 meetings like this would be good. I'd also echo calls for the IESG to flag up the specific schedule experiments a bit earlier, but I'm still ok with those happening, despite the conflicts that ensue. (And FWIW the draft agenda conflicts this time seem no worse to me, for me. YMMV of course.) Cheers, S.
Attachment:
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
