On 3-aug-2005, at 15:09, Pekka Savola wrote:
Add an extra 15 mins for lunch, it makes it so less 'rushed'.
That would be a very good idea.
Personally, I don't see much need for lengthening the lunch;
I can see how having more time for lunch would be beneficial, but I'm
not sure if a mere additional 15 minutes will do the trick, and going
out during the middle of the day for two hours or more with our
current level of scheduling difficulties seems severely suboptimal to
me.
having the break at 1.5 hrs makes the lunch (hopefully) more
focused at the essentials (gather the company quickly; find food
_close_ by; order; talk; eat; get back).
In Holland we're not used to eating a full meal for lunch. It occurs
to me that we could save a lot of time by having some kind of light
lunch available at the meeting rather than rush out, order and eat
quickly and rush back.
Opinions from those with a different culinary culture...?
I have yet to experience the benefits of the changed last slot/dinner
order (nothing too interesting in the last slot from my point of
view, so I went out to discover Paris) but I think it makes a lot of
sense. The argument that it makes dinner time inconvenient isn't very
relevant as most participants are outside their home timezone in the
first place.
But regardless of that, IMHO the breaks could be reduced to 15 mins
or so. That would allow us at least 2-3 additional 1hr slots,
which would probably be very useful due to numerous scheduling
conflicts at least I've experienced.
Ah, you mean per meeting rather than per day. :-)
I'd have thought 30 minutes would be too long to, but it turns out
this allows sessions to run late 10 minutes without trouble, which is
much better than people rushing out so they don't miss the cookies
the second the break starts.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf