Subject: [rgchairs] RE: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:22:46 +0300

Thierry,

Not to pick on you specificially, but I am always dismayed folks not
planning to attend on Friday.  Even more so when we are talking about
bofs.  The trend of cutting back on Friday scheduling seems to be over
and we are even scheduling some meetings on Friday afternoon. There's
no reason to assume that nothing will happen on Friday.  

Scheduling is already tight and shuffling things around because people
didn't plan to stay until Friday seems like a weak excuse - if they 
haven't planned to be here when the bof is scheduled, you can always
postpone the bof for the next IETF.

Much more problematic, for me, is having Working Groups that overlap
where I need to be at both, or key contributors have drafts to discuss
at overlapping meetings.  This is existing, chartered work that often
needs face-to-face time in order to progress tough issues.  If key
contributors have to be in two places at once, the results of the face-
to-face time can often be reduced.

I agree with Thierry that the draft Agenda should be published much
earlier - I am happy to set forward the agenda request date so the
Agenda folks have more time to play with.  Additionally, I'd
like to have stricter guidelines so the last minute adjustments
to the Agenda are made only for 'good' reasons - and we should define
those reasons upfront.  

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of ext Thierry Ernst
> Sent: 13 July, 2005 04:50
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Thierry, note that the agenda address is [email-masked]
> Ah, yes, sorry about that, and thanks for pointing out.
> 
> > It's also not new that the IETF continues until Friday
> > lunchtime - I'm really surprised that people plan to leave
> > earlier. I'm sure that our scheduler will do what she can, but
> > the Friday slots have to be used.
> 
> Yes, I know about that, and I'm always arranging my flight
> accordingly and change it to an earlier date if there is nothing
> important to attend. 
> 
> But I'm not responsive for the other people own flight arrangments,
> although for this particular case I have to bear the situation of not
> having the right people at hand for the success of this BOF. As the
> initiator and chair, I need to ensure the success.
> 
> It's notorious that people try to arrange their flight in advance in
> order to get cheaper prices, so if we really want people to organize
> their trip in a way they consider staying on Friday, we:
> 1. must issue a draft agenda earlier (I would say 1 month in 
> advance at
> the very least
> 2. in case of agenda changes, no slot should be move to the 
> extremity of
> the week
> 3. people should get used to stay on Friday
> 
> The problem for 3 is that some WGs have to play the role of guinea-pig
> and this is not acceptable. So, 1 and 2 may be the 1st category's
> requirement. May be one eaay way is for some WGs to volunteer for a
> Friday BOF ahead of time, with the information spread on the relevant
> mailing lists.
> 
> A side note, I think it's a bad idea to schedule a BOF on 
> Friday because
> many people are not aware of the content of a BOF before they attend;
> also BOF need to span a larger audience.
> 
> 
> Thierry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >      Brian
> > 
> > Thierry Ernst wrote:
> > > Dear secretariat,
> > > 
> > > I would like to request a re-schedule of the Monami6 BOF 
> (currently
> > > on Friday) as 2 of the people involved in the setting up 
> of this BOF
> > > with me would not be able to attend Friday due to early flight
> > > arrangment.
> > > 
> > > Also, the NEMO WG is allocated a 2.5 hours slot, 2 hours would be
> > > largely enough this time.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Thierry
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 17:58:55 -0400
> > > IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > > 
> > >>Draft Agenda of the Sixty-third IETF
> > >>July 31 - August 5, 2005
> > >>As of 7/11/2005
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>WEDNESDAY, August 3, 2005
> > >>1400-1630 Afternoon Session I
> > >>APP	lemonade	Enhancements to Internet email 
> to Support Diverse
> > >>Service Environments WG
> > >>INT	dnsext	DNS Extensions WG
> > >>INT	nemo	Network Mobility WG
> > >>OPS	imad	IPv4 Multicast Address Architecture BOF
> > >>RTG	ccamp	Common Control and Measurement Plane WG
> > >>SEC	mobike	IKEv2 Mobility and Multihoming WG
> > >>TSV	tsvwg	Transport Area WG
> > > 
> > > 
> > >>FRIDAY, August 5, 2005
> > >>0800-0900 Beverages - 
> > >>0900-1130 Morning Session I
> > >>APP	calsify	Calendaring and Scheduling Standards 
> Simplification WG
> > >>GEN	newtrk	New IETF Standards Track Discussion WG
> > >>INT	monami6	Mobile Nodes and Multiple Interfaces in IPv6 BOF
> > >>IRTF	hiprg	HIP Research Group
> > >>SEC	alien	Anonymous Identifiers BOF
> > >>TSV	enum	Telephone Number Mapping WG
> > >>TSV	nsis	Next Steps in Signaling WG
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> 

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

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 10:17:16 -0400

On Jul 12, 2005, at 11:22 PM, [email-masked] wrote:

> planning to attend on Friday.

I'm not.  I know quite a few people who don't plan on attending  
Friday sessions.  For this past meeting in Minneapolis, I knew of  
quite a few people who left on Thursday morning.

The simple fact of the matter is that many people have limited time  
and limited budget.  And some people have little choice regarding  
airline schedules, either they take the 11:00am flight on Friday or  
they wait an entire extra day for the 11:00am flight on Saturday.   
And when meetings are held in places like Paris, some people are  
under considerable pressure not to give the appearance of a  
boondoggle. There are a host of real world issues many participants  
must grapple with, and telling them that they should be more devoted  
to the IETF is not helpful.

As for scheduling, I'd rather see the extra plenary session abandoned  
and have that time dedicated for more working group and bof slots.

-andy

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 20:11:40 +0200

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 10:17:16AM -0400, Andrew Newton wrote:

> boondoggle.

Thanks for reminding us that you are living in the US.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:38:07 -0400

> Thanks for reminding us that you are living in the US.

Thanks for providing another example of a sentiment that is not helpful.

-andy

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 22:04:10 -0400

On Jul 13, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Rohan Mahy wrote:
> I don't believe this boondoggle criticism as a reason to go home on  
> a Friday.

I was referencing cases where travel arrangements dictate that a  
person must spend more time at a venue than the conference requires.   
To some, it is not easy to justify.

>   Anyone who has looked at a recent IETF agenda packed full of  
> meetings starting at 9am and running late into evening with  
> meetings through Friday is going to understand that the meeting  
> runs for the entire week and is very full.  Going there Sunday  
> through Thursday vs. Sunday vs. Friday will not change their  
> impression of the conference as either useful or a boondoggle.

Travel authorization and travel budgets are usually measured in  
transportation costs and lodging expenses, not conference agendas.

>   If anything, I believe I would be a bit suspicious if one of my  
> employees decided he really needed to go to a technical conference  
> but it wasn't important enough to attend the last day of it.

I'm glad you think in that way.  I wish all technical managers and  
supervisors did as well.

>> There are a host of real world issues many participants must  
>> grapple with, and telling them that they should be more devoted to  
>> the IETF is not helpful.
>>
>
> True, but asking those who are willing to attend all week to jump  
> through hoops to accommodate someone else's schedule who chooses  
> not to attend is neither fair nor helpful.

Well, it might not be fair, but it can resolve some of the problems.   
Though I'm not advocating to do this.  My point is that we might want  
to face up to the fact that many people do this at every IETF.  And  
it would seem no amount of being defensive with regard to the Friday  
sessions has fixed it.  Why else do we keep having this conversation  
in the IETF?
Perhaps we ought to do something helpful, like find additional time  
for slots elsewhere in the week.

>> As for scheduling, I'd rather see the extra plenary session  
>> abandoned and have that time dedicated for more working group and  
>> bof slots.
>>
>
> I've chaired WG meetings and adhocs during the hours typically  
> associated with the plenary, and I don't believe this time makes  
> for productive meetings, especially later in the week.  I don't  
> think extra evening slots will produce quality face-to-face time,  
> which is ostensibly why we bother to attend the meetings at all.

My experience differs.  But if the evening time on Wednesday or  
Thursday is unproductive, then perhaps we shouldn't hold any sessions  
at that time, including the plenary.

-andy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:41:46 +0200

1. As of now, the generic page about IETF meetings at
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/meetings.html includes this
text:

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

and the Secretariat will include this text in the information for future meetings.

2. Andrew Newton wrote:
...
> The simple fact of the matter is that many people have limited time  and 
> limited budget.  And some people have little choice regarding  airline 
> schedules, either they take the 11:00am flight on Friday or  they wait 
> an entire extra day for the 11:00am flight on Saturday.   And when 
> meetings are held in places like Paris, some people are  under 
> considerable pressure not to give the appearance of a  boondoggle.

For those of us who routinely work 6 full days at the IETF (inlcuding
all day Sunday and all day Friday) the notion that it could be
viewed as a boondoggle is, well, bizarre.

> There 
> are a host of real world issues many participants  must grapple with, 
> and telling them that they should be more devoted  to the IETF is not 
> helpful.

This is true. But with 120 WGs, plus BOFs and research groups, competing
for slots, we objectively need the full week.

> and have that time dedicated for more working group and bof slots.

We've tried that. It doesn't work. We really need the time to discuss
both operational and technical issues with the community as a whole.

     Brian

---

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 07:39:35 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Jari Arkko writes:

>
> o  The meeting fees can raise the bar for participants without the
>     backing of a major corporation.

I misread this line as saying that the bar could cover the meeting fee 
for the participants....

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

---

From: Rohan Mahy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:55:29 -0700

On Jul 13, 2005, at 7:17, Andrew Newton wrote:
> I'm not.  I know quite a few people who don't plan on attending Friday 
> sessions.  For this past meeting in Minneapolis, I knew of quite a few 
> people who left on Thursday morning.
>
> they wait an entire extra day for the 11:00am flight on Saturday.  And 
> when meetings are held in places like Paris, some people are under 

I don't believe this boondoggle criticism as a reason to go home on a 
Friday.  Anyone who has looked at a recent IETF agenda packed full of 
meetings starting at 9am and running late into evening with meetings 
through Friday is going to understand that the meeting runs for the 
entire week and is very full.  Going there Sunday through Thursday vs. 
Sunday vs. Friday will not change their impression of the conference as 
either useful or a boondoggle.  If anything, I believe I would be a bit 
suspicious if one of my employees decided he really needed to go to a 
technical conference but it wasn't important enough to attend the last 
day of it.

> There are a host of real world issues many participants must grapple 
> with, and telling them that they should be more devoted to the IETF is 
> not helpful.

True, but asking those who are willing to attend all week to jump 
through hoops to accommodate someone else's schedule who chooses not to 
attend is neither fair nor helpful.  I have left IETFs early to spend 
more time with my family and for other personal reasons, but I do not 
ask anyone else to schedule conference meetings based on that choice.

If you want to book early flights before the agenda is out, you are 
playing roulette and you have no business being upset at the folks who 
set the agenda for "losing" some of the time. I believe that the 
process is, on average, fair to everyone.  Some times things will be 
convenient for an individual, and sometimes they won't.

I've chaired WG meetings and adhocs during the hours typically 
associated with the plenary, and I don't believe this time makes for 
productive meetings, especially later in the week.  I don't think extra 
evening slots will produce quality face-to-face time, which is 
ostensibly why we bother to attend the meetings at all.

thanks,
-rohan

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:59:24 +0300

>>> under considerable pressure not to give the appearance of a
The selection of a proper meeting site is a delicate decision.
Some of the main requirements for organizing a meeting
include:

 o  Conveniently located site, within a short drive from both US west
     and east coasts, Europe, and most of Asia, with reserved
     parking near the registration desk for everyone.

 o  Proper balance between services for work related
     purposes and recreational possibilities.  The key problem
     here is getting your manager to approve a trip to the IETF.
     For this to happen, the manager needs to have a vision of
     everyone working very hard and not even peeking outside.
     This is not likely if the destination is, say, Hawaiji.  On the
     other hand, the participants are not immune to enjoying
     good weather, food, or scenery.

     In order to solve this, the secretariat is negotiating with the
     city of Paris, France about changing the name of one of their
     suburbs to "Minneapolis" and holding our meetings there
     on a regular basis.  This would be a win-win change for
     everyone: travel gets approved, the participants concentrate
     only on work in any case, but they get to do it in a warm
     place and eat well.

 o  No meetings will be held during any religious holiday or during
     national holidays, all religions and nations considered.  (As a
     result, the next seven meetings all need to be held on January
     6th, 2006, as no other dates are available.)

 o  The meeting fees can raise the bar for participants without the
     backing of a major corporation.  On the other hand, the fees
     generate income necessary for the IETF to operate.  One option
     that has been considered for this problem is to create a new
     meeting fee category for Tourists.  The fee would be the same as
     for other participants, but it would not entitle for actual
     entrance to the meeting, reducing congestion in the meeting rooms.
     Initial marketing research among Tourists indicates that this new
     category would be attractive, as long as their managers would
     still approve their trip to "Minneapolis".

     Another experiment that has been planned is the creation of an
     "accommodation included" meeting fee option.  This would allow
     low-budget travel for our academic participants, with the
     accommodation arranged in the meeting rooms.  The only remaining
     problem is determining how to wake these participants up before
     the meeting starts, so that they go from their "night" sleep to
     "not an interesting draft" nap.

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 11:16:57 -0400

On Jul 14, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> The simple fact of the matter is that many people have limited  
>> time  and limited budget.  And some people have little choice  
>> regarding  airline schedules, either they take the 11:00am flight  
>> on Friday or  they wait an entire extra day for the 11:00am flight  
>> on Saturday.   And when meetings are held in places like Paris,  
>> some people are  under considerable pressure not to give the  
>> appearance of a  boondoggle.
>>
>

I'm sure it is.  But it isn't your perception that is at issue here.

>> grapple with, and telling them that they should be more devoted   

If we truly need the whole week, then Friday's should be scheduled  
with sessions all day.

On Jul 14, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Thomas Heide clausen wrote:
> Seeing as about 90% of the important IETF-meeting-work is hallway  
> and bar discussions...

If this is true, then this is another reason why the extra plenary  
should be scuttled.  It would give people more collaborative working  
time.

On Jul 13, 2005, at 11:36 PM, [email-masked] wrote:
> IETF meetings are not mandatory for people to attend; if attending  
> meetings
> are problematic or subject to intense scrutiny by someone's travel  
> department,
> then they can just particpate on the mailing list.  There are  
> plenty of people
> who do this already.

Here's what seem people think about IETF meetings (read item #1):
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05193.html

-andy

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:40:30 +0200

> I'm sure it is.  But it isn't your perception that is at issue here.

I have to get my travel approved too, you know, and I often have
to help colleagues get their travel approved. And including Friday
is much more a matter of personal (in)convenience than a question
of an extra day's per diem.

> If we truly need the whole week, then Friday's should be scheduled  with 
> sessions all day.

For people who are in their own country or region, that probably would
prevent them getting home Friday night. For people who have to cross the
ocean, it would be fine, I agree.

>> Seeing as about 90% of the important IETF-meeting-work is hallway  and 
>> bar discussions...
> 
> 
> should be scuttled.  It would give people more collaborative working  time.

That leads me to a reductio ad absurdum argument that we should also
abolish WG meetings.

>> then they can just particpate on the mailing list.  There are  plenty 
>> of people
>> who do this already.
> 
> 

Arguing from the MARID experience or against an Experimental RFC doesn't
make your case, IMHO.

    Brian

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 15:34:33 -0400

> Arguing from the MARID experience or against an Experimental RFC  

What?  I was not referring to MARID or those associated issues.  I  
was referring to the perception that some have regarding the nature  
of IETF meetings.  Perhaps you should read the follow-on messages.

Arguing for the status quo does not fix the problem, IMHO.

-andy

---

From: Thomas Heide clausen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 16:40:10 +0200

>     "not an interesting draft" nap.

I realize that his post was in jest, but...

This is, incidentally, not entirely a bad suggestion: many of us (not 
necessarily exclusively academics) are restricted to being refunded X 
Eur/night, with X being roughly meeting-hotel-fee/4 -- meaning that a 
(not-insignificant) part of participants have to hunt around for Super8 
and their likes (and their more sleazy) far from the meeting venue -- 
or to pay exorbitant amount of money out of their own pockets.

The consequence: the valuable off-session face-time at 
evenings/nights/mornings is often difficult to attend -- getting to a 
pre-breakfast-meeting (typically with Fred Baker -- hi Fred!) can be 
hard when you have to negotiate 45min traffic before meeting at the 
hotel at 6AM. Especially when you came to your hotel after negotiating 
45min of traffic the night before well past midnight.

Seeing as about 90% of the important IETF-meeting-work is hallway and 
bar discussions, this does present some serious stress.....

So while sleeping-in-the-meetingrooms isn't the best idea, providing a 
"reg-plus-hotelroom" option might make things a little easier -- 
especially if it was presented as "the [only] option" to pick and print 
for the beancounters and travel departments....

Btw., I'm speaking of someone who's in the past had to do the 
previously mentioned hotel-finding-gymnastics (except in Atlanta, where 
I had to drive 1h30 to find a hotel that my employer would pay), and 
who usually attends IETF-meetings from saturday to saturday and from 
6AM to past midnight (and yet still misses out on important things). 
For the moment, I've got a "sugar-daddy" helping me avoid this by 
simply picking-up-the-tap, but  I dread the day when this relationship 
ends....

--thomas

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:38:26 +0200

Andrew Newton wrote:
> What?  I was not referring to MARID or those associated issues.  I  was 
> referring to the perception that some have regarding the nature  of IETF 
> meetings.  Perhaps you should read the follow-on messages.

Well,you specifically pointed to the first one, which seems to be all
about MARID and an Experimental.
> Arguing for the status quo does not fix the problem, IMHO.

Er, no, but what I thought this thread was about was inconveniences
in the normal agenda layout.

    Brian