![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Olafur:I try to gather some data to see if this would help. My intuition is that we need 2.5+ hours for some very significant working groups so these groups would end up with multiple adjacent slots. But, maybe the smaller slots would help with the things that they are scheduled against.
Russ At 07:57 PM 7/17/2008, Olafur Gudmundsson wrote:
At 17:33 17/07/2008, IETF Chair wrote:The IESG is considering an experiment for IETF 73 in Minneapolis, and we would like community comments before we proceed. Face-to-face meeting time is very precious, especially with about 120 IETF WGs competing for meeting slots. Several WGs are not able to get as much meeting time as they need to progress their work. As an experiment, we are considering adding two Friday afternoon one-hour meeting slots. The proposed Friday schedule would be: 0900-1130 Morning Session I 1130-1300 Break 1300-1400 Afternoon Session I 1415-1515 Afternoon Session II Please share your thoughts about this proposed experiment. The proposed experiment will be discussed on the IETF Didcussion mail list (ietf at ietf.org).How about addressing the problem by creating 1.5 hour slots? The Dublin schedule has 117 meetings slots scheduled, 24 are 60 minutes 47 are 120 minutes 8 are 130 minutes 38 are 150 minutes Number of working groups ask for 2 hour slots because they think 1 hour is not sufficient. For example by scheduling Monday as 4 x 90 minutes slots instead of the 2 x 120 + 1 x 130 we gain 8 meeting slots. One observation, some of the 60 minute slots and Friday morning slot have less than 8 meetings in parallel. IMHO adding 2 sets of 60 minute slot on Friday will not help. Olafur
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.