--On Friday, 28 November, 2008 10:49 +0000 Stewart Bryant
Another option would be to run until 1300, that's still early
enough to have lunch but it does give us a 1.5 hour extra
timeslot but only takes that 1.5 hours, not 3.5 like the
1300 - 1500 timeslot so people with flights at 1700 or even
1600 can possibly attend.
We could maybe start earlier on Friday as well - say 8am -
i.e. run 0800 till 1300 with only only a 10 min
coffee break. That would put nearly 5 hours into the schedule.
I agree with using the Friday for meetings, but not if the
cost is staying over Friday night and maybe not getting home
At any given meeting, in any given timezone, that will always be
the cost for some people: meeting on Friday morning equals not
getting home until Saturday morning and possibly not until late
Saturday night or Sunday. That, to me, is the bottom line --
whether IETF is really important to all of us to justify giving
up two consecutive weekends.
Note that, while there are more exceptions than there used to
be, most flights to the US from Europe leave late morning or
early afternoon. Allowing a few hours to get to airports and
check in, Friday meetings have to be over rather early in the
day if they are held at all. The situation is better for
getting from the US to Europe _if_ one is on the US East Coast.
If one is further west on the continent (with San Francisco
being an extreme case) then one is typically back to mid-day
flights. From Stockholm, there is a mid-morning departure to
New York; anything else I sampled to the US requires a fairly
Hiroshima is going to be at least as "interesting": while the
flights from Narita to the US seem to leave late afternoon, one
has to transit from Hiroshima to Narita, either by air (the only
departure I can find is at 0755) or train, again, killing most
of the day. Flights from Narita to Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and
London (my small, not-random, sample) leave mid-day, with the
same connection issues, i.e., "meet Friday" means "depart
Saturday and arrive Saturday afternoon at best".
I would much rather see the IESG working with WGs to make sure
they do what they are supposed to be doing, which involves most
of their work by email, rather than figuring out how to get more
face time in --whether by big, multi-WG-interim meetings or
longer full IETF meetings. The place where the latter path
leads is well-known, more participants proportionately for whom
"IETF participant" the the major element of their job
descriptions and less by those who actually design, build, and
operate things. We have gotten ourselves into a situation in
which, for many ADs, the IESG is their major job commitment for
as long as they serve. Let's not let that progress to include
the rest of us.
Ietf mailing list