Subject: how about talking about the Content *inside* the venue?

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:52:29 +0200

We have in my opinion had a consistently low operator turnout.  I wonder 
if it would be possible for us to align our conference dates in such a 
way as to overlap with NANOG, RIPE, USENIX, LISA, and other appropriate 
conferences so that we can get some crossover?

Eliot

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

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:28:51 +0200

On Oct 18, 2005, at 12:52, Eliot Lear wrote:
> We have in my opinion had a consistently low operator turnout.  I  
> wonder if it would be possible for us to align our conference dates  
> in such a way as to overlap with NANOG, RIPE, USENIX, LISA, and  
> other appropriate conferences so that we can get some crossover?

We have in my opinion had a consistently low researcher turnout.  I  
wonder if it would be possible for us to align our conference dates  
in such a way as to overlap with SIGCOMM, Infocom, ICNP, and other  
appropriate conferences so that we can get some crossover?

(I'm only half joking.)

Lars
--
Lars Eggert                                     NEC Network Laboratories

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:29:25 +0200

> conferences so that we can get some crossover?

That tends to be inconsistent with the past requests to schedule well
in advance. We have dates fixed through the end of 2007, and it's getting
to the time when we ought to fix dates for 2008.

We certainly need the right balance of participation between suppliers,
operators and large users. We are short of both the latter, IMHO.

     Brian

---

From: "Theodore Ts'o" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:37:26 -0400

> conferences so that we can get some crossover?

It's a nice thought, but at least as far as USENIX and LISA are
concerned (which may not necessarily be the best conferences for
operator crossover anyway), it may not be practical due to hotel
requirements.  USENIX and LISA book their conference space anywhere
from 3 to 5 years out (it used to be as far as 8 years out, but we've
since pulled that in somewhat after the dot-bomb bubble), simply
because it's hard to get get guaranteed hotel space with the breakout
space requirements needed for Usenix and Lisa --- and I suspect the
IETF has similar constraints.  So trying to find two hotels with the
necessary breakout space for both IETF and a USENIX conference in the
same city may be difficult/almost impossible.

This may not be as much of an issue with NANOG and RIPE, however,
since my impression is that they aren't quite as big.

And of course, aligning conference dates can sometimes be less
conducive for crossover depending on how intensively people want to
attend one or the other conference.  For example, there may be people
in the Security Area that would not be happy if we scheduled an IETF
meeting on top of the Usenix Security Conference, even if they were
held in the same city, since it may make the job of scheduling working
groups far more complicated, not to mention the logistical issues of
having to travel back and forth between two conferences.

>From the Usenix perspective (I'm the treasurer of Usenix, in case
people didn't know), we've thought about putting two half-week
workshops back-to-back in the same week, and we think that's likely to
work, especially if the workshops are related; however, given that the
IETF is essentially a full week, and most people would probably want
to spend their weekends with their families, trying to do something as
a back-to-back with another event seems less likely to work.

						- Ted

---

From: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:02:40 -0400

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:52:29 +0200
> conferences so that we can get some crossover?

Please, oh please, NO! Putting two full meetings into one week simultaneously is an excellent  way
to either miss one or spoil both. 

Here are some  ideas, I'm sure that none of these are really new.

- for pay tutorials at NANOG, RIPE, APRICOT, etc. about the latest from the IETF. Could raise some
money, but is not trivial.

- Brian could institute  the "President's Lecture", where an invited speaker is given serious time
(i.e. an hour) to make a serious point or a serious review of  some issue. (This could be
operational, say for someone from NANOG, or technical, or even political, say with someone from the
ITU or the 3GPP or ...)

- for pay tutorials during the IETF, intended to educate outsiders and get them to come to the rest
of the meeting. I notice that lawyers do that a lot, mixing CLE sessions with other content. The
lawyers come (and pay) for the CLE, stay for the rest. Again, could raise some money, but is not
trivial.

Regards
Marshall