Re: Proposed Experiment: More Meeting Time on Friday for IETF 73

[Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com>]

Dear Eric;

On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Eric Burger wrote:

> I will take a swag...
>
> On the one hand, having had (and, believe it or not, this time by  
> request) work group meetings on Friday morning, the Friday slot is  
> an excellent filter to ensure that only the die-hard participants  
> and those people paying their own way who need a Saturday Night  
> Stay(tm) attend.
>
> On the other hand, this guarantees more than a week away from home.   
> If you have no family or life or want to stay away from said family  
> or life, this would be a good thing.  However, for the rest of us,  
> this is not an attractive option.
>
> Since Pandora's Box is now formally open, how about this: since the  
> Internet Area has a lion's share of slots, and RAI draws huge  
> crowds, what if we went summer / winter olympics and (gasp!) add a  
> fourth annual meeting, but not have all areas meet at all meetings.

This is my option 4. I think that a variant, call it 4.a, might also  
be useful :

Have 4 meetings per year, but close the meeting down Thursday evening.  
This would save a little money per meeting, raise
more money for the IETF (by having 4 meetings) and would mean that for  
most of us, the IETF would only eat 1 weekend, not 2.

Here are the stats. I don't think that adding even a 4 day meeting  
could be scheduled before 2010, if then.

Option    Extra          Rough Cost / Year     Biggest Drawback IMHO
         Slots / year
1         48-72          $ 100,000 to 140,000  Staying Friday night
2         108            $  90,000             Staying late at night
3         48             $ 140,000             AD availability,  
collisions
4         117            highly profitable     Extra travel, would  
have to wait till at least 2010
4.a       97             profitable            Extra travel, would  
have to wait till at least 2010
5         24-32          neutral or profit     Extra travel,  
inefficient  for attendees

Regards
Marshall


> Yes, for me that just means four meetings to go to instead of three.  
> However, one would hope we could get the work done Monday - Friday,  
> instead of Saturday - Saturday, which we really are talking about  
> here. Moreover, there really are people that will never venture  
> outside their area, no matter how much we tell them it is important  
> for them, and the IETF as a whole, to do it. Thus, rather than  
> fighting physics, let us embrace gravity and make for a more  
> sensible schedule all around.
>
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 5:33 PM, 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).
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IETF-Announce mailing list
> > IETF-Announce at ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf