Subject: Re: Friday @ IETF61?

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:07:06 +0200

--On tirsdag, august 31, 2004 12:09:59 +0100 Tim Chown 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> So,
>
> Are there any real Friday sessions at IETF 61, or not?
>
> Someone tried to put v6ops on Friday am at IETF 60, before shifting
> it out... it would be nice to either have IETF run out to 2-3pm and
> have some real sessions, or simply make Friday officially BoFs only...

Tim,

so far, the proposal I have the most sympathy for is to add a post-lunch 
Friday session. The San Diego agenda was NOT easy on many!

For the last "n" meetings, we have always started out with Friday morning 
as "real sessions"; as the agenda has developed, the secretariat has tended 
to fill in Friday last, and people have tended to ask for "not Friday" 
meetings - which has been accomodated by the secretariat.

Sometimes this has led to Friday being no sessions, or Friday having just 
"odd" sessions (like second slots). Last time, it was pretty full.

So we're starting out the same as last time: Friday is real.

But - I think "BOF only" is a non-starter; BOFs are our official procedure 
for having an IETF face-to-face discussion on whether or not to start a 
working group. Having all of them on top of each other would be - to put it 
mildly - not optimal.
(Yes, some BOFs have other purposes. But this is one of them.)

                         Harald

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

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:18:13 +0100

> "odd" sessions (like second slots). Last time, it was pretty full.

Pretty full?   There were two WG meetings and two BoFs... although
(for the first time?) there was an afternoon session (with 1 WG!).

Observe the trend - here is a summary of the IETFs since IETF 50:

IETF 50:  7 WG, 1 BoF
IETF 51:  7 WG, 0 BoF
IETF 52:  5 WG, 0 BoF
IETF 53:  No Friday sessions
IETF 54:  0 WG, 1 BoF
IETF 55:  No Friday sessions
IETF 56:  2 WG, 2 BoF
IETF 57:  1 WG, 2 BoF
IETF 58:  3 WG, 2 BoF
IETF 59:  No Friday sessions
IETF 60:  2 WG, 2 BoF

Since IETF 52 the Friday session has gone downhill from a "real" session
to become a parking place for a couple of BoFs and a couple of WG sessions
at best.

> So we're starting out the same as last time: Friday is real.

So I'm not convinced that Friday was real last time :)  I think real is as
per IETF 50-52.  There's quite a difference.
 
Since IETF 52 we have had 5 Fridays used out of 7 IETFs, and yet in
those sessions only a total of 8 WG slots and 9 BoF slots.   That's 
essentially 1.6 WG meetings per Friday IETF session, and those are
(no disrespect :) minority WG meetings.

I feel we should either go back to treating Fridays like IETF 50-52 or 
just put 4 BoFs there and call it "special interest group day" or something.

I would have no objection to two full WG sessions on a Friday, but
I can see why most local (US) attendees would want to head off home at
lunchtime (from a US event).

Tim

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:32:56 +0300

> (for the first time?) there was an afternoon session (with 1 WG!).

(snip)

> IETF 60:  2 WG, 2 BoF

Just a small correction: the DNA group had its second session
on Friday too, so I believe this makes the total 3 + 2 = 5.

(DNA's schedule change was done too late to make it to the
officially distributed agenda.)

--Jari

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:04:49 +1000

I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek.

1) cheaper hotel rates for attendees. weekends are cheaper.

2) less congestion in airports for flights. 

3) for Europe and Asia, attendance in the USA becomes a loss of two weekends
   (one either side) and for the Americans, NO weekend. This would be fairer
   for everyone, and mean we had a cheaper, more productive time.

-George

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:23:32 +0200

> (for the first time?) there was an afternoon session (with 1 WG!).

hm. You're right (with corrections as noted).
btw - the afternoon session was an IRTF RG, not an IETF WG, if I remember 
rightly. They asked for it, they got it.

One reason for my bad memory may be found in the draft agendas....

June 1: 2 WGs (like most other slots)
June 16: 4 WGs (most other slots had 6)
June 25: 3 WGs
July 14: 4 WGs, 1 RG
July 23: 1 BOF, 2 WG, 1 RG
July 27: 2 BOFs, 1 WG, 1 RG (final agenda - most slots had 8)
On the day: 2 BOFs, 2 WG, 1 RG (I think)

So it's not that they don't get scheduled there (which is what I thought at 
first), it's that they get moved out of there when people request it.

I think.

                         Harald

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:42:08 +0200

On Thu, Sep 02, 2004 at 09:18:13AM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
[...]
> lunchtime (from a US event).

Well, some of us Europeans (and possibly others) may have to stay
until Saturday if there are two sessions. Not that I mind.

Last time there were 8 parallel meetings in most sessions. I would
rather have more meetings on Friday. At least a Friday morning session,
but possibly also after lunch sessions. If all the WGs met, we would
need at least 9 parallel sessions (including Friday) I think.

Stig

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:24:21 -0400

> I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek.

While I'd certainly prefer to travel midweek, there are a couple
of problems with running midweek to midweek.  One is that some
people can't work on Saturday for religious reasons.  Another is
that you're doubling the chance of conflicting with another week-
long meeting.

Melinda

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 15:48:16 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Melinda Shore wrote:

> people can't work on Saturday for religious reasons.

The same applies to Sunday and Friday but this hasn't caused any problem
so-far.  Why would Saturday be different?

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit
and wisdom to do their job properly.                          (David Brent).

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 09:53:22 -0400

On Thursday, September 2, 2004, at 09:48 AM, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC) 
> so-far.  Why would Saturday be different?

"Fridays" is actually Friday night.  The proscriptions against
work on Saturday are for the entire day, until sunset.

Melinda

---

From: Susan Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 10:22:49 -0400 (EDT)

> so-far.  Why would Saturday be different?

Because (U.S., maybe Pac Rim?) Jewish attendees can get back home in time
for Friday night services when we end on Friday.  If we end on Saturday,
there's no way to get back home for either Friday night or Saturday
morning services.

---

From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE NCC)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:11:54 +0200 (CEST)

> work on Saturday are for the entire day, until sunset.

I was thinking about other religions.

Henk

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 13:36:18 -0400

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>> "George" == George Michaelson <[email-masked]> writes:
    George> I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to
    George> midweek.

  I'm surportive of this.
  I think that it will result in more people attending only half of
the meeting. When we were at 3000/meeting, that might have be worth
encouraging.

  I think that it is much harder to deal with from a logistics point of
view (booking hotel conference space), but then, we already book part
of the space starting the thur/fri in advance for setup purposes.

- --
]     "Elmo went to the wrong fundraiser" - The Simpson         |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson,    Xelerance Corporation, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked]      http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/mcr/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another Debian GNU/Linux using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:49:57 +0200

> I call again for meetings run over the weekend. midweek to midweek.

There's been a number of comments for and against this proposal.

To get some numbers on this, it would be good if those for which it
matters whether the meetings run Sunday-Friday or alternatively
Thursday-Tuesday could fill in the short poll form available
at http://tools.ietf.org/poll/meeting-days/ .

Please state what you personally would prefer, not what you think the
IETF should decide in the end.

	Thanks,

		Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:08:56 +0200

Thanks,

		Henrik

P.S: This is a re-post with a different subject line, original post
was in the thread where George initially posted his proposal.