Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will "do the
right thing, whatever that turns out to be" ...
"Henk" == Henk Uijterwaal <henk(_at_)ripe(_dot_)net> writes:
Henk> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the
7
Henk> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the
other
Henk> 4 or 5 for WG meetings. That way, we'll have all the BOFs done
by
Henk> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the
week,
Henk> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.
I think this is the best idea.
I agree with this - front-load the BOFs, but not to the point where they
collide with related BOFs ("do the right thing, whatever that turns out to
be" ...)
If the rooms for the BOFs are clearly identified, then we can also
easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that
occurs most mornings.
My understanding of what BOFs are supposed to do, is that WG-forming BOFs
should be demonstrating that there is a group of people who will do the work
described in a proposed charter, and that they roughly agree that the
proposed charter describes what they want to do.
If that's so, we should rarely have a WG-forming BOF that runs over an
hour - and if THAT'S so, it will be easier to schedule BOFs early in the
week without colliding with other BOFs.
The "bunch of people get together and talk" kind of BOF don't need to be so
constrained on time - I'm focused on WG-forming BOFs when I say this.
Thanks,
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf