Subject: ISSUE: Meeting scheduling

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 10:54:00 -0400

Some years ago, after a heated set of discussions within the
community, the IESG and the Secretariat committed to putting
meeting scheduling on a minimum of 18 months, and preferably
24 months, out in the future basis.    Lead times like that
permit other organizations to work around our schedules, and a
number of other useful varieties of advanced planning.   With
very short lead times, or schedules that try to reserve a
choice of several weeks, we end up with important conflicts,
people missing either our meetings or other important ones,
etc.

But we haven't been doing very well.  Spring 2004 (8 months
out) has dates (good) but no location.  Summer 2004 (a year
out) has no dates (two separate target weeks), and dates after
that are more or less set, but without locations, but we've
had some experience with such dates turning out to be
tentative when the Secretariat finds sponsors only for another
time.

And, of course, the last few meetings, including Vienna, were
firmed up only with very short (less than six months) lead
time.

This impresses me as unhealthy and unprofessional.

    john

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:15:21 -0700

John,

JCK>     Lead times like that
JCK> permit other organizations to work around our schedules, and a
JCK> number of other useful varieties of advanced planning. ...
JCK>  we end up with important conflicts,
JCK> people missing either our meetings or other important ones,
...
JCK> This impresses me as unhealthy and unprofessional.

The current approach to scheduling and meeting fee only suit
participants who come for the whole week, who have major travel funding
-- with little concern for air fair or hotel rates -- and who view the
IETF meeting week as the dominant aspect of their schedule.

Hence, the current approach is pretty exclusionary.

Notably, the current diversity of IETF work means that we need to make
it easier for folks who are coming for a particular working group, or
two, rather than presuming that they are here for the week.

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:21:53 -0400

> This impresses me as unhealthy and unprofessional.

Well, yeah, but that's an administrative Secretariat problem, not a
problem in the way we create standards.  I wouldn't give that to the
same group that tries to figure out what authority WG chairs should
have.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:47:42 -0400

--On Tuesday, 24 June, 2003 11:21 -0400 Scott W Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Well, yeah, but that's an administrative Secretariat
> problem, not a problem in the way we create standards.  I
> wouldn't give that to the same group that tries to figure
> out what authority WG chairs should have.

Scott, it does interfere with the way we create standards,
because it gets in the way of effective attendance.   And the
IESG generally, and the IETF Chair in particular, have been
given (or assumed) the authority and responsibility for
managing the Secretariat.   If that isn't feasible, or they
are too overloaded to do that task well, it seems to me that
the topic intrudes into this WG.

     john

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:12:42 -0400

> two, rather than presuming that they are here for the week.

in other words, you want to favor the narrowly focused and narrow-minded.

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:23:30 -0700

Hello folks,

Spencer Dawkins and I have submitted an Internet Draft
proposing that there be two stages in the IETF
standardization process.  Until it shows up in the
usual Internet Draft directories, you can get a
copy at the following URL:
	http://people.nokia.net/~charliep/txt/probstmt/twostage.txt

It's a bit rough, but not bad for submissions after midnight.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:42:13 -0500

There's probably a micro aspect to this, as well as
a macro aspect - http://www.ietf.org/meetings/wg_agenda_57.html
has exactly eight WG/BoF agendas listed, including three MobileIP
agendas and two general-area agendas.

I really do understand our dependence on people who are willing to
come for the week, not just for a morning, but how can anyone
make an informed decision on what sessions they need to be at,
to accommodate part-time attendance plans?

Spencer

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 09:48:59 -0700

Charles,

CEP> Spencer Dawkins and I have submitted an Internet Draft
CEP> proposing that there be two stages in the IETF
CEP> standardization process.

A quick read indicates that Proposed stays the same, but Draft and Full
are collapsed together.

Have I missed anything essential?

If not, what is the incentive for seeking the second stage?  We already
have things stuck at stage 1.  What changes the likelihood that anyone
will go after stage 2?

d/

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:55:31 -0400

> A quick read indicates that Proposed stays the same, but Draft and Full

Could we either move this to the solutions mailing list or
find some other appropriate home for the discussion?  I'm
delighted to see a proposal, but this isn't the place to
discuss it.

Melinda

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 12:01:50 -0500

Dear Melinda,

I pinged Harald a few minutes ago to ask "use solutions,
or set up another mailing list?"

Given that we've already had one question on this list,
my suggestion is that we discuss the proposal on the
solutions mailing list...

The solutions coordinates are:

http://eikenes.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/solutions

Spencer

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:35:10 +0300 (EEST)

> to accommodate part-time attendance plans?

Moreover, the flexibility of the agenda is such that IMHO it is not 
possible to make make reasonable part-time attendance plans after the 
agenda has firmed up .. and then it is too late and costly (which 
was the one of the most important motives to begin with) already.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:55:35 +0200

> was the one of the most important motives to begin with) already.

Having been involved in scheduling discussions many times, dealing
with complex clash-avoidance for essential participants, I really
doubt that we can do significantly better - the only possible change
is to shift the whole scheduling process several weeks earlier.
And that makes it very tough to schedule BOFs, given the iterative
process behind BOFs.

   Brian