Subject: Experiment for different schedule for Friday

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:24:54 -0400

The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.

The IESG would like to try a schedule experiment on Friday, using this schedule:

 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM - Session I
11:00 AM - 11:20 AM - Room Change and Cookie Break
11:20 AM - 12:20 PM - Session II
12:10 PM - 12:30 PM - Room Change Break
12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III

The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed without raising the meeting fee.

On behalf of the IESG,
   Russ

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:54:47 -0500

At 04:24 PM 8/22/2011, IETF Chair wrote:
>The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 
>82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
>

since there will be cookies, this is ok with me  ;-)

>The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost 
>associated with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC 
>believes that the additional cost can be managed without raising the 
>meeting fee.

bonus

James

>On behalf of the IESG,
>    Russ
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:28:34 -0700

>  12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III

I'd suggest shortening the first session and eliminating the cookie break, so:

  9:00 AM - 10:30 AM: Session I
10:30 AM - 10:40 AM: room change
10:40 AM - 11:40 AM: Session II
11:40 AM - 11:50 AM: room change
11:50 AM - 12:50 PM: Session III

I don't think 20 minutes is sufficient for a cookie break and room 
change, and think we can go without in order to be done sooner. 
However, if people really want cookies, perhaps they could be in the 
meeting rooms during Session II instead of centrally?

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
If you can't annoy somebody there's little point in writing --Kingsley Amis

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 19:39:15 -0400

On Aug 22, 2011, at 7:28 PM, Randall Gellens wrote:

> I don't think 20 minutes is sufficient for a cookie break and room change, and think we can go without in order to be done sooner. However, if people really want cookies, perhaps they could be in the meeting rooms during Session II instead of centrally?

Or perhaps they could plan ahead a little and grab a cookie or two (and some coffee) before the meeting….

W

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 07:40:09 +0200

> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.  The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed without raising t…

I think this is a good experiment to run as proposed.

Eliot

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:04:56 -0400

+1.  I could also happily live with the alternate, more
compressed, schedule -- I think both are preferable to the
schedule used in Quebec and earlier.

   john

--On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 07:40 +0200 Eliot Lear
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday
>> of IETF 82.  The IESG is seeking your input on these
>> potential changes.
>> 
>> The IESG has already consulted with the IAOC because of the
>> cost associated with the additional food and beverage break.
>> The IAOC believes that the additional cost can be managed
>> without raising the meeting fee.
>

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:08:22 +0200

Russ,

On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 17:24 -0400, IETF Chair wrote:
> The IESG is considering a different schedule for the Friday of IETF 82.
>   The IESG is seeking your input on these potential changes.
> 

In principle this makes sense, but do people think that the IETF meeting
agenda will remain unknown and unknowable until the very last minute? As
we see in the Tao of the IETF:

        ... the agenda is fluid, and there have been many instances of
        participants missing important sessions due to last-minute
        scheduling changes after their travel plans were fixed. Being
        present the whole week is the only way to avoid this annoyance. 

This has happened to me in the past... more than an "annoyance" since
there were three working groups I really wanted to join in the physical
meeting and I missed one. A transcontinental flight, hotel stays, and
time away from the "day job" are a heavy price that is more than
"annoying" when you miss 1/3 of the meetings.

If the idea of not fixing agendas is to remain, then any experiments for
extending the Friday schedule pretty much mean that everyone has to
extend their stay, doesn't it? I think if we want to use Friday time
properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

Thanks,

--
Shane

---

From: Glen Zorn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:14:04 +0700

> properly, then this ideology needs to go.

Either that or the idea that Friday is an "off day" has to go.  Oh,
wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  Slow learner or just in denial?

---

From: Jaap Akkerhuis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:25:38 +0200

Fully agree. We should consider Friday (morning) as yet another
normal (.5) IETF day or not. 

	jaap

---

From: Shane Kerr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 13:33:19 +0200

Glen,

On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 17:14 +0700, Glen Zorn wrote:
> wait, it has, a couple of years ago.  

I don't believe I mentioned anywhere that Friday is considered an "off
day". I did not even say that the working group session that I missed
was on a Friday.

What I think is we would get a better use of time by making an agenda
and sticking to it. I think that would make it easier on everyone
attending. I also think that without this, Friday slots will always be
ghetto.

> Slow learner or just in denial?

That's pretty rude. It makes me sad that this kind of mail is "okay" at
the IETF. :(

--
Shane

---

From: IETF Chair <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 09:48:41 -0400

> Or maybe it already has and I misunderstand things!

The important dates page for the meeting <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82> shows a date for the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda.  We try very hard to make no changes after the final agenda date.  Sometimes changes are unavoidable because the Area Directors learn about WG-specific details that cause conflicts.  That said, we do our best to keep to the final agenda.

Russ

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:28:19 -0400

+1 for me as well for either proposed new schedule.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:27:45 -0700

> The important dates page for the meeting <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates-2011.html#IETF82> shows a date for the draft agenda and a date for the final agenda.  We try very hard to make no…

To my way of thinking, that's the key bit. That said, I could wish that were a week earlier than 10/21. I am planning November travel now, and expect it will include visits to Beijing, Hong Kong, and Singapore simply because I am in the region and people are making those requests. Hence, I expect to leave home 29 October. Company policy wants me to have hotels and flights sorted out two weeks earlier. So I will assume I have a Friday meeting, and if I don't I'll make the time available to my local sales people.

> 12:30 PM - 13:30 PM - Session III

For those flying to Japan, the last flight leaves around 2:30, but most flights are late morning
     http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_NRT,Nov18
This does help those going to Beijing:
     http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_PEK,Nov18
Hong Kong is of course every hour: http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_HKG,Nov18
The change does help those going to Singapore and Sydney:
     http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SIN,Nov18
     http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SYD,Nov18

So there will be some locals and relatively-locals that can make the afternoon flight home, and more power to them. My guess is that, like me, anyone from Europe or North America who thinks they *might* have a meeting on Friday will be planning a flight home Saturday (http://www.hipmunk.com/#!TPE_SFO,Nov18). If I'm flying Saturday, shifting meetings by a couple of hours on Friday doesn't make much difference. 

We have a discussion of this topic every IETF meeting, and every IETF meeting there is a lot of moaning and groaning about flights home. My perspective: we all want to go home, and the trade-off I just described happens - it just happens to different groups each time. We don't have enough time in the week to avoid doing something on Friday. We all wind up with Friday meetings - for myself, in the past several years, more often than not. So the only meetings I can actually plan to fly home from on Friday are meetings on the North American west coast - even the east coast usually means I'm out too late to make the flight home.

Get over it. Publish the agenda, and if that means we have to fly home Saturday, whatever.

---

From: Joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:02:56 -0700

> normal (.5) IETF day or not. 

The schedule for the last few meetings has in fact done that.
not-considering it normal would be a deviation from recent behavior.

---

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:24:35 -0400

+1

-hadriel