Subject: Keeping this IETF's schedule in the future...?

From: Joerg Ott <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:38:28 +0200

At this IETF, we have done a nice experiment with the modified
schedule of our meetings for the purpose of dealing with restaurant
hours.

 From the first 2.5 days, I find this an extremely useful thing
and we should consider to organize out future meetings in a
similar fashion.

There are numerous benefits (not in any particular order):

-- less impact of jetlag: late night sessions are particularly
    bad for all the people who fly across many timezones

-- easier dinner planning: in most places, we have seen cases
    of (many) people being late for the evening session just
    because of restaurant congestion

-- we have many informal get-togethers over dinners that would
    no longer need to be cut short because of the evening session

-- we even gain an extra slot before the social on Tuesday night

We still can have informal late night meetings after so this
feature is not affected (and restaurants serve after 8pm in
other cities).

What do other people think?

Cheers,
Joerg

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:44:44 +0100

> What do other people think?

Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.

-- 
Tim/::1

---

From: "RL 'Bob' Morgan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:51:14 +0200 (CEST)

I agree completely.  I have always found the 7:30-10PM slots to be 
suboptimal even when I haven't crossed a lot of timezones.  The standard 
2.5 hour morning slots also are painful (almost all other meetings have a 
mid-morning break).  I think we should strongly consider retaining this 
week's schedule.

  - RL "Bob"

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:52:24 +0300

> and we should consider to organize out future meetings in a

I've found the new arrangement pretty good too.

>    bad for all the people who fly across many timezones

I don't know about other people, but I've always felt pretty
tired after the dinner slot, jet lag or not...

>    because of restaurant congestion

This is a big plus.

> What do other people think? 

Sounds good to me.

--Jari

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:59:16 +0200

> > What do other people think?

I think it's a big improvement, I would really like to see this too.
And yes, late session Monday night are really tough when you have
a jet lag.

> Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.

That might be nice also if using the old schedule...

Stig

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:05:20 +0200

Strongly agree!  I was making this observation to some folks after the 
first day:  Not having to worry about meetings after dinner is a great 
thing!

Lakshminath

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:08:48 +0200

On Aug 03 2005, at 12:38 Uhr, Joerg Ott wrote:

> we should consider to organize out future meetings in a
> similar fashion.

Yes, yes, yes!

Another really useful feature here in Paris were the tables for sit- 
down breakfast.
Result: Productive breakfast meetings.

Gruesse, Carsten

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 13:37:11 +0200

This is EXACTLY my experience, too. I've been able to grab a BUNCH of 
people that I needed to talk to, every morning this week so far.

> Result: Productive breakfast meetings.

I agree on the slightly-longer lunch - especially with groups of more 
than about 6, it's really been tough getting back for the first 
afternoon sessions...

Spencer

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 13:39:36 +0200

I haven't heard *any* negative comments so far. We will attempt
a systematic survey to be sure.

    Brian

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:02:12 +0200

> a systematic survey to be sure.

Sorry to disappoint you :-)

It's absolutely the right thing to do in Paris where restaurants
aren't open until 7:30, but I don't like going to bed soon after
eating if I can avoid it (and I don't like living without sleep
either).  I think in general we should just fit into the local
culture.  Have the breaks when the locals break.  In Minneapolis that
might mean 6-8.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 14:18:02 +0200

> > a systematic survey to be sure.

I like this schedule as well.

Related: If (like in M'polis) there is no social planned for Tuesday,
can we have the Monday evening sessions on Tuesday instead?  Jetlag
disappears over time, and it is much easier to work until 10pm after
being in a timezone for 3 days instead of 2.

Henk

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad.                 (Tom Verlaine)

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 08:59:47 -0400

>Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
That would be a very good idea.

		--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:04:08 -0400

>first day:  Not having to worry about meetings after dinner is a great 

I did notice fewer people in the bar than usual.  Given how much work 
gets done at bar bofs, that's significant.

I really like the new schedule, though.  I'm never ready to eat dinner 
at 5:30 anyway.

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 15:08:04 +0200

> gets done at bar bofs, that's significant.

Might be the prices. The La Fayette is still tolerable, but the Le  
Meridien is ridiculous, esp. if the band plays - 23EUR for the first  
beer?

Lars
--
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 16:09:10 +0300 (EEST)

> That would be a very good idea.

Personally, I don't see much need for lengthening the lunch; having 
the break at 1.5 hrs makes the lunch (hopefully) more focused at the 
essentials (gather the company quickly; find food _close_ by; order; 
talk; eat; get back).

But regardless of that, IMHO the breaks could be reduced to 15 mins or 
so.  That would allow us at least 2-3 additional 1hr slots, which 
would probably be very useful due to numerous scheduling conflicts at 
least I've experienced.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:14:56 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Lars Eggert wr

>Meridien is ridiculous, esp. if the band plays - 23EUR for the first  

Ouch!  Not that hotel bars are ever cheap, but that's ridiculous.

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:16:35 -0400

Steve,

>gets done at bar bofs, that's significant.

I suspect that's due to what they charge in the hotel bar more than 
anything else! :-)

Andy

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:20:08 -0400

The bar at the top of La Fayette has similar prices - first drink after 
9:30pm is 21.50 E, second and so on is 15E or so.

OTOH if we could get wireless at James Joyce I'd be over there mostly....

Mike

---

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:22:51 +0200

I too am in favor of the new schedule.

As for the length of lunch.  I believe that 1.5 hours is appropriate at
most venues at which it is possible to obtain relatively fast meal
service.   Here in Paris, it appears that lunch at many of the
restaurants really requires closer to 2 hours just in order to get
served.

Jeffrey Altman

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 09:22:47 -0400

I very much like the new schedule.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:29:26 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> as an European I strongly agree!

Thanks

[email-masked]

PS: the key point is "restaurants serve after 8pm"... This can be an
issue in some places in winter.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:36:05 -0400

--On Wednesday, August 03, 2005 15:29 +0200 Francis Dupont 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> PS: the key point is "restaurants serve after 8pm"... This can
> be an issue in some places in winter.

Of course, we could make that -- which really should be 
“restaurants serve after 9PM” to allow for meetings running 
over or the need for immediate after-meeting conversations -- a 
site selection criterion :-)

And, yes, I prefer this schedule too, fwiw.

     john

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:40:24 -0400

--On Wednesday, August 03, 2005 09:16 -0400 "Andrew G. Malis" 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> I did notice fewer people in the bar than usual.  Given how
>> much work gets done at bar bofs, that's significant.
>
> I suspect that's due to what they charge in the hotel bar more
> than anything else! :-)

To the extent to which bar bof meetings are semi- or completely 
spontaneous (and many are), having multiple bars in separate 
buildings doesn’t help much either.   I’ve gone looking for 
people late evening, tried two places in one building and one in 
the other, and given up.  And I’ve mounted that intense a 
search only once.

     john
b

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 09:44:15 -0400

In message <E32465322FD83BF1D45007F6@AS-S2N>, John C Klensin writes:
>buildings doesn’t help much either.   I've gone looking for 
>the other, and given up.  And I've mounted that intense a 
>search only once.
>

We've had that discussion many times -- think of the post-Vienna 
discussions.  Multiple hotels/bars are definitely a bad idea.  But 
they're not always avoidable.

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 15:44:50 +0200

On 08/03/2005 15:36 PM, John C Klensin allegedly wrote:
> Of course, we could make that -- which really should be “restaurants
> serve after 9PM” to allow for meetings running over or the need for
> immediate after-meeting conversations -- a site selection criterion :-)

Where I come from many restaurants close at 9pm.  Let's follow local
culture.

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 10:05:10 -0400

Agree with Scott.

Also, one of the interesting side effects already alluded to by I think 
Steve B:  Evening sessions had the benefit/curse of having people come back 
to the site after dinner.  The lack of that as well as the somewhat 
unfriendly (cost wise/ location relative to site wise) bar site in the La 
Fayette and the Meridien (cost wise) has decreased the number of bar bof 
sessions substantially.  That may be hitting our productivity a bit.

Mike

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 22:42:09 +0200

> Personally, I don't see much need for lengthening the lunch;

I can see how having more time for lunch would be beneficial, but I'm  
not sure if a mere additional 15 minutes will do the trick, and going  
out during the middle of the day for two hours or more with our  
current level of scheduling difficulties seems severely suboptimal to  
me.

> having the break at 1.5 hrs makes the lunch (hopefully) more  
> focused at the essentials (gather the company quickly; find food  
> _close_ by; order; talk; eat; get back).

In Holland we're not used to eating a full meal for lunch. It occurs  
to me that we could save a lot of time by having some kind of light  
lunch available at the meeting rather than rush out, order and eat  
quickly and rush back.

Opinions from those with a different culinary culture...?

I have yet to experience the benefits of the changed last slot/dinner  
order (nothing too interesting in the last slot from my point of  
view, so I went out to discover Paris) but I think it makes a lot of  
sense. The argument that it makes dinner time inconvenient isn't very  
relevant as most participants are outside their home timezone in the  
first place.

> But regardless of that, IMHO the breaks could be reduced to 15 mins  
> or so.  That would allow us at least 2-3 additional 1hr slots,  
> which would probably be very useful due to numerous scheduling  
> conflicts at least I've experienced.

Ah, you mean per meeting rather than per day.  :-)

I'd have thought 30 minutes would be too long to, but it turns out  
this allows sessions to run late 10 minutes without trouble, which is  
much better than people rushing out so they don't miss the cookies  
the second the break starts.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:24:50 +0200

> That would be a very good idea.

Dare I say that lunch expands to fill the time available?

The problem with expanding lunch time is that something else
has to contract. I'm not sure it's practical. The GGF has tried
providing box lunches once or twice, but the quality and choice
left much (very much) to be desired.

     Brian