On Nov 11, 2009, at 2:43 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
I'd even like to see the Nomcom ask IESG candidates whether they
consider unbounded meeting-length creep acceptable and what they
intend to do about it.
To be very honest, the number of things we can do is pretty limited.
The number of meeting slots is a more-or-less-fixed number; we can
change the number of them in a few ways, but once we have picked a
number of days and rented a set of meeting rooms, this is largely
about deciding how we will use a fixed resource. We can talk about
having more one-hour slots and less two-hour slots, putting more slots
into a day by staying later into the evening, putting more slots into
the day by running more of them in parallel (more meeting rooms), or
extend the duration of the meeting. Or, we can tell working groups
that they can't have as many meetings as they would like.
I'm not sure I agree that Friday is a "problem"; the problem is that
we have N working groups asking for M meetings and N*M needs to be <=
that fixed number. Friday is a solution, one that has certain
downsides. Stanislaus doesn't like the solution and IMHO has not
proposed a solution that tells us how to better manage the demands on
the resource.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf