Subject: Agenda outline?

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:53:11 -0400

Hi -

I'm wondering if it would be possible to start publishing an agenda 
outline least as early as registration opens?   E.g. a list of session 
slot start and ending times as well as any non-WG slots (Plenary, 
Hackathon etc) that are well known in advance.

My goal here is to have a better idea of when I can schedule dinners and 
side meetings earlier than waiting until we start getting the 
preliminary WG-centric agenda.

Thanks - Mike

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:49:30 -0500

Hi Mike,

> Hackathon etc) that are well known in advance.

As I understand it, "not really" -- those start/end times can
potentially be changed if needed to meet session scheduling
constraints.

> preliminary WG-centric agenda.

I will confess that it's not entirely clear to me why knowing a
specific start time now is important, but it's also something that I
don't really need to understand.

-Ben

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 20:02:13 -0400

> don't really need to understand.

Let me give you a for instance -

In London, I needed to meet with the CTO of a company a good 45 minutes 
by tube and walking from the meeting location, and I had sessions most 
of that day that I either needed to be or wanted to be in. (Basically, 
my travel time ~equalled the session II block time).   I made a guess 
based on previous meetings as to when the 1st afternoon session would 
finish and when the third session would start.  I guessed wrong by a 
cumulative 1/2 hour.  I'd booked the meeting a good month or so in 
advance due to the CTO's ridiculous travel schedule and ended up having 
to skip (a small) part of the third afternoon session as he wasn't able 
to reschedule.

In any event, it turns out some of what I was looking for already exists 
- there's just no link to it from the main page: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/102/agenda.

This is a "nice to have" rather than "my life will end without it" but 
I've needed this information at least twice over the last few meetings 
earlier than even the first agenda publication for various reasons.

Later, Mike

---

From: Mary B <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:36:29 -0500

The schedule you pointed to has the meeting on Thursday - i.e., Thursday
schedule looks like the usual Friday.  I assume that's an error?

Mary.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> In London, I needed to meet with the CTO of a company a good 45 minutes by
> tube and walking from the meeting location, and I had sessions most of that
> day that I either needed to be or wanted to be in. (Basically, my travel
> time ~equalled the session II block time).   I made a guess based on
> previous meetings as to when the 1st afternoon session would finish and
> when the third session would start.  I guessed wrong by a cumulative 1/2
> hour.  I'd booked the meeting a good month or so in advance due to the
> CTO's ridiculous travel schedule and ended up having to skip (a small) part
> of the third afternoon session as he wasn't able to reschedule.
>
> In any event, it turns out some of what I was looking for already exists -
> there's just no link to it from the main page:

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:10:57 -0500

Security by obscurity is not a good plan, but I don't believe this version
of the schedule was intended for general awareness, because we're still
negotiating conflicts and session duration for at least half a dozen
working groups, and likely more. So I wouldn't believe any schedule until
it's formally announced.

Spencer, as one of the ADs who is negotiating conflicts and session
duration :-)

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 7:37 AM Mary B <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 7:02 PM, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]
> <mstjohns@comcast..net>> wrote:
>
>> by tube and walking from the meeting location, and I had sessions most of
>> that day that I either needed to be or wanted to be in. (Basically, my
>> travel time ~equalled the session II block time).   I made a guess based on