On Jul 18, 2008, at 5:41 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Maybe it's just me, but...
I oppose this experiment. I already donate to my employer a
significant amount of travel time on weekends without wanting to add
to it. Flight schedules are tightening, thanks to the cost of fuel,
which means that having sessions on Friday at all poses a problem
now, if I want to get back by Saturday. Having afternoon sessions
would put a nail in that coffin.
I propose two alternative experiments:
1. Required agendas and Approval
No session can be approved without a posted agenda. Many agendas
are late, which makes it difficult for people to know where they
have to be and when. This is particularly true of working groups
that meet more than once. The dhc chairs in particular have done a
really good job of providing the working group with an opportunity
to comment on the agenda prior to upload. Approval of agenda by
either WG or AD (I could make arguments for both) would also limit
stupid stuff. Just because I've written a draft doesn't make it
intersting to anyone else.
2. More meeting rooms per venue.
While this one adds expense in one way it can reduce in hotel and
food costs to counterbalance. The real downside is that people will
have to be pickier as to which meetings they attend.
In addition, I'd argue that we need to update our rules to allow for
less notice so that more use of teleconferencing can take place.
It may just be too little coffee, but I am not sure what you meant
here. What rule prevents teleconferencing ?
On a related note, I think that it would be valuable to have video of
each meeting, as long as it could be done at a reasonable cost. A
fixed camera aimed at the chair's table, plus a fixed view of the
presentation, should not cost that much (roughly, 16
cameras would maybe cost $ 4 K, plus whatever setup and teardown time
I recognize that this solution is not a panacea, especially for the
poor shmo who has to be up at 4:00am to participate.
Ietf mailing list
Ietf mailing list