Subject: RE: Meeting room size estimation

From: Tony Hain <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:51:58 -0800

This sounds easy, but when the exceptions are taken into account (ie: I will
attend x unless it conflicts with y), the already difficult task of creating
the agenda gets even harder. The IETF has and will grow to fill its
container, much like the root ball of a plant. The reason the recent
problems are becoming more pronounced is we have exhausted the incremental
spaces and the next size container is a significant leap. It is also
extremely unlikely that any real work would be accomplished in convention
center sized rooms, which would lead to more content free presentations than
we already have.

===================================================
Tony Hain			[email-masked]
<mailto:[email-masked]> 

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Bernie Volz [mailto:[email-masked]]
		Sent:	Monday, December 14, 1998 9:31 AM
		To:	[email-masked]
		Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
		Subject:	RE: Meeting room size estimation

		How about asking some additional questions on the
registration form?

		If the form asked which working groups or BOF sessions are
you likely to
		attend, that would give the folks scheduling sessions an
idea as to the
		likely attendance. Of course, past history can also be used
as it might
		be more accurate for sessions that have been running for
several IETF
		meetings.

		The web form would just allow follow to check the sessions
they are
		likely to attend (just the WG or BOF session name, not the
time/date
		as those might not be known).

		- Bernie Volz
		  Process Software

		From: [email-masked]
		Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:44:11 -0800
		Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
		To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
		Subject: Meeting room size estimation
		CC: [email-masked]

		Fred,

		As the co-chair of an IETF working group, I must confess to
some
		puzzlement about estimating meeting room size.  How can I do
this?
		I really have little idea how many people showed up in my
working group
		at, say, the last four IETF meetings.  It is always a
g**awful big
		room full of faces and a long list of names on the blue
sheets,
		but I don't keep any record of how many.  Perhaps keeping
such
		statistics is a chair's responsibility, but I was not aware
of this.
		Even if I did know, how would I extrapolate to the NEXT
meeting,
		taking into account things like the overall registration?

		On the other hand, CNRI *does* have the data necessary to
make an
		informed guess.  I know they are terribly busy, but maybe
there could
		be some two-way flow of information between secretariat and
WG chairs,
		to home in on a realistic estimate?

		It also seems that this estimate must have large error bars,
so the
		actual meeting room should be 30% larger than the
		one-standard-deviation upper bound.  A .67 occupancy works
better than
		a 1.3 occupancy, I believe.  At least, it is more
comfortable.
		Maybe with central record keeping we could even learn to do
it better.

		Bob Braden

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:25:24 -0800

On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 11:51:58AM -0800, Tony Hain wrote:
> spaces and the next size container is a significant leap.

I'm not sure that there is such a discontinuity.  However, there is 
another aspect of this problem I saw mentioned only once, and I 
think it is important.

There are only two or three WG/BOFs that I actually had time to prepare 
for.  That's a cold reality of my situation in life -- it's not a 
lack of intelligence or technical expertise, it is a pure lack of 
time.  Those particular sessions are important to me, however, and I 
want to be involved -- in one case I would go so far as to say that 
my involvement was essential.

I suspect that this is fairly common -- most of us hold down day 
jobs that make serious demands on our time, and I suspect that many
of us have time to effectively participate in only one or two 
WGs.  We might call these "Few Issue Attendees".

I believe that the FIAs are a substantial fraction of the IETF
attendance.  They actively participated in 3 or less WGs, but that
active participation is definitely valuable, to them and to the IETF. 
FIAs are a permanent feature of the IETF landscape, and there is no
point in trying to get rid of them. 

So, what do they do during the 100 or so other sessions for which
they are not well-prepared?

0) be obnoxious in other sessions
1) lurk in other sessions
2) socialize in hallways, bars, and restaurants
3) visit tourist attractions
4) sit in the terminal room
5) twiddle their thumbs in their hotel rooms
6) arrive late and leave early.

Except for 0, none of these is obviously bad, and all of them can be 
planned for.  

And a purely practical suggestion: If you want to *guarantee* that
you will have free-flowing electrons for your laptop, bring a small
multi-socket adapter (maybe even a small powerstrip), and an
extension cord.  You will be a hero, and at the same time will always
have electricity. 

kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]				lonesome." -- Mark Twain

---

From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 17:25:24 -0800

kent

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:48:43 -0800 (PST)

You are making the suggestion too hard ... though it might also feed
the scheduling process ... all that is needed to make rooms large enough
is to know how many folks who would attend if there were no conflicts.
Conflicts would reduce the size.

Of course, artful creation of conflicts could also reduce room size
requirements ;-:)

The question could also be stated in a way to focus folks on the notion
of "What WGs are you planning to PREPARE for?" and have a second
category of "What WGs will you lurk in if your schedule permits?" along
with a statement of 'policy' re. giving prepared folks priority.

As an inducement to record intent, the IETF web site could have a
program added which could be used shortly before the IETF to produce
a personal schedule of rooms/events?  Even niftier if the WG agendas
and active drafts lists could be merged such that you could easily
identify and access all the preparatory material before the meeting.

Dave Morris

---

From: "David W. Morris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:48:43 -0800 (PST)

Dave Morris