The IETF meetings have evolved over time. There are now more
activities on Sunday than there used to be. There used to be an
opening plenary on Monday. We used to have WG sessions in the evening
after dinner. There used to be one long plenary on Wednesday evening,
starting at 7:30 PM. When we split the plenary into two, we initially
flip-flopped the two plenaries between Wednesday and Thursday from one
meeting to the next. We used to have more one-hour meetings than we
have now (or at least it seems that way).
My point is that nothing is set in stone, and the meetings can and
should evolve over time to meet the changing needs of the IETF.
Personally, I would like to see more one-hour sessions than we have
now - that would force presentations and discussions to be shorter and
more focused. And only allow one WG session per meeting. As has been
noted elsewhere, work tends to expand to fill the time alloted to it.
Perhaps this will allow us to get back to a model where most people
can plan to fly home on Friday, and Friday will be reserved for
specific activities, such as the RRG and WGs that specifically want
more time and are willing to meet on Friday, so that people can plan
their travel well in advance to be able to take advantage of
discounted fares.
Cheers,
Andy
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Fred Baker <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf