Subject: IETFs... the final Friday?

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:40:12 +0000

Hi,

Has there been any discussion in the upper echelons of the IETF about the
issue of Friday sessions?

If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with around 3-5
meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or more are BoFs.

Is this likely to continue, such that if you're from a different
continent to the host, and you choose to travel home on Friday to get
home a day earlier and save a little hotel money, you stand a (slim) 
chance of missing a WG session you'd like to attend?

Personally I would be happy to travel back Saturday if I knew Friday
was a fullish day, but as it is it's neither here nor there really...
thoughts?

-- 
Tim/::1

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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:20:42 +0100

Tim,

The web site says:

"We start Monday morning and run through Friday lunchtime, with late scheduling changes. Newcomer's training and technical 
tutorials takes place the previous Sunday afternoon. Participants should plan their travel accordingly."

Friday morning is part of the IETF. It's true that generally we schedule about
half as many parallel sessions as during the rest of the week, but that means
you only need to be in 4 places at once instead of 8 the rest of the time.

The survey results indicate that we shouldn't extend to a full day on Friday,
but scrapping those ~4 sessions would have serious impact on scehduling
constraints earlier in the week.

    Brian

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:41:12 -0600

On 1/20/06 at 1:20 PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>Tim Chown wrote:
>
>>If you look back over past agendas, it's typically a day with 
>>around 3-5 meetings in one session to 11.30am, of which half or 
>>more are BoFs.
>
>Friday morning is part of the IETF. It's true that generally we 
>schedule about half as many parallel sessions as during the rest of 
>the week, but that means you only need to be in 4 places at once 
>instead of 8 the rest of the time.
>
>The survey results indicate that we shouldn't extend to a full day 
>on Friday, but scrapping those ~4 sessions would have serious impact 
>on scehduling constraints earlier in the week.

However, one of Tim's points is well-taken: We MUST stop scheduling 
BOFs when the likelihood of people attending drops. And saying 
"Friday is a real day" does no good if you put mostly BOFs on Friday. 
If you want people to stick around on Friday, put only the most 
important meetings then. (And no, I don't mind if my meetings are 
then. I'll be there anyway.) To the extent possible, BOFs should be 
early in the week so that they can be chewed on during the week.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
QUALCOMM Incorporated

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:17:57 -0800

>  To the extent possible, BOFs should be early in the week so 
> that they can be chewed on during the week.

This strikes me as a singularly useful point:

    Some meetings, such as BOFs, can be expected to generate (and warrant) 
follow-on hallway discussion.

    We should try to schedule those meetings to leave days for that.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>