Subject: [Recentattendees] Further Clarification Re: IETF 104 Preliminary Agenda

From: IETF Agenda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:08:39 -0800

Hi everyone,

Our message earlier today announcing the preliminary agenda [1] was missing some further context. As previously mentioned by Alissa after IETF 103 [2], the IESG wanted to continue the unstructured time experiment at IETF 104.

Wednesday's schedule has regular sessions until 13:20, unstructured time in the afternoon, and the plenary in the evening at 17:10. This leaves almost four hours of unstructured time for attendees to reserve for side meetings. During this period, there will also be one unique Technology Deep Dive session with the acronym WGTLGO [3].

Monday through Friday, we will have two rooms available for attendees to reserve for side meetings as usual. On Wednesday afternoon, we will have five rooms available for side meetings. Further details about how to sign up for these rooms will be announced shortly. 

Thanks,
IETF Secretariat

[1]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/_JeP2fQ7rHPosZWpNtpl8I_uL5U
[2]  https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/H64AuTYhxsGqM1a8BfTkszCZyso
[3]  https://www.ietf.org/blog/ietf104-bofs/

---

From: Greg Mirsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 07:29:29 -0800

Dear All,
I'm disappointed to find that the number of conflicts for me at IETF-104 is
as high as in Bangkok which was two times higher than at any meeting
before. I'm stressed that I'll have to run from DetNet to BFD to deliver
presentations on work being done, forget being able to follow the
discussion adequately. If that's the new normal, then why to come to the
meeting at all.
I strongly encourage IESG to let us use all available time for WG sessions
and let attendees use their time for "corridor talks".

Regards,
Greg

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 9:08 PM IETF Agenda <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Our message earlier today announcing the preliminary agenda [1] was
> missing some further context. As previously mentioned by Alissa after IETF
> 103 [2], the IESG wanted to continue the unstructured time experiment at
> IETF 104.
>
> Wednesday's schedule has regular sessions until 13:20, unstructured time
> in the afternoon, and the plenary in the evening at 17:10. This leaves
> almost four hours of unstructured time for attendees to reserve for side
> meetings. During this period, there will also be one unique Technology Deep
> Dive session with the acronym WGTLGO [3].
>
> Monday through Friday, we will have two rooms available for attendees to
> reserve for side meetings as usual. On Wednesday afternoon, we will have
> five rooms available for side meetings. Further details about how to sign
> up for these rooms will be announced shortly.
>
> Thanks,
> IETF Secretariat
>
>
> [1]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/_JeP2fQ7rHPosZWpNtpl8I_uL5U
> [2]
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/H64AuTYhxsGqM1a8BfTkszCZyso
> --
> 104all mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/104all
>

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:26:00 -0500

There seem to be two separate issues here:

1. The meeting ends on Friday.

2. There is some combination of too few slots, too many (or too long) WG
session requests, and not enough information about meaningful conflicts to
construct a viable schedule.

#2 is a problem that the secretariat can partially address through changes
to the conflict declaration process. For example, by allowing chairs to
specify *individuals* who need to be at particular sessions because they're
presenting or are heavily involved in work, rather than via the working
group proxy, which may (and does IME) encode preference as well as need,
may become stale over the course of meetings, and often fails to capture
critical conflicts. This is a hard problem, but if it's possible to get a
viable schedule for the requested WG sessions given the number of slots,
there is a solution.

The secretariat can't address the problem of too many (or too long) WG
sessions, because it's a judgment call on the part of those involved in the
WGs. Perhaps sponsoring ADs can get more involved in deciding whether a WG
really needs to consume an official meeting slot, or whether they really
need as much time as requested for in-person work. This is also a hard
problem, but if we're going to make the most efficient use of limited
official in-person meeting time, hard choices will need to be made. (IMO,
leave the draft status updates to the mailing list. Use the meeting for
issues chosen in advance that will benefit from in-person discussion and
collaboration.)

#1, by contrast, is an easy problem to solve. Your WG can be assigned to a
slot anywhere from Monday to Friday at the secretariat's discretion.
Therefore: don't schedule your return trip until late on Friday at the
earliest, or don't complain when you are scheduled to leave before the
meeting ends. Which is on Friday. Seems straightforward.

Kyle

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 12:33:25 -0800

> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:34 PM, Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> A better approach might be to ask people at registration what sessions they needed to attend.

An even better approach, although it delays feedback by one meeting, would be to look into the IETFers Application data. People list what they want to attend for the purpose of calendar maintenance. That would inform the next meeting's agenda development.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that there is a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven is an interesting comment on projected traffic volume...

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 15:56:13 -0500

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:45 PM Les Ginsberg (ginsberg) <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Kyle –
>
>
>
> It seems to me that your summary has overlooked one key point. As per the
> announcement:
>
>
>
> *<snip>*
>
> *Wednesday's schedule has regular sessions until 13:20, unstructured time
> meetings.*
> *<end snip>*
> And part of your response is:
>
>
>
> *<snip>*
>
> *The secretariat can't address the problem of too many (or too long) WG
> sessions,*
>
> *<end snip>*
>
>
>
> Presumably the alternative could have been to have another slot in the
> afternoon on Wednesday for WG meetings – which would have provided more
> flexibility in avoiding conflicts.
>

No contest. I should have listed that as a third issue.

> Without taking sides, I think the question is whether the introduction of
> “unstructured time” is adding or subtracting value.
>

It really seems like we're trying to stuff too much into 5 days. (When you
have 5 lbs of manure and a 4 lbs bag...) Were side meetings in the
mornings, evenings, or during slots without important sessions not working?
Are there groups that really are too busy to skip less important sessions
in favor of collaborative side work? (E.g., there are WGs I *like* to
attend, but when it conflicts with some work I *need* to do, I know where
I'm going to be. These 3 weeks per year are precious, and with every
session being recorded, anything I'm passively consuming gets watched
later.) It's not like the entire IETF needs to collaborate in the same
place at the same time, so I'm skeptical of the need for slots dedicated to
unstructured work.

That said, even with the addition of Wednesday afternoon to the available
slots, the crunch would still exist. The other two issues need to be
addressed.

Kyle

---

From: Kyle Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:24:34 -0500

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:02 PM Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 3:56 PM, Kyle Rose <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> The problem is that everyone has _different_ conflicts.   Coming up with a
> time when everybody is available for any value of “everybody” greater than
> about three is quite difficult.   So no, not the entire IETF, but that’s an
> extreme example of the actual problem.
>

How widespread of a problem is this? Most of the groups I'm involved in
comprise folks who have the same conflicts I do, because we're all working
in the same general areas. There are also 5 mornings and 4 or 5 evenings
(if you count Sunday) available for cross-functional collaborative work
that can't fit elsewhere. I suppose some attendees are enough in-demand
that those are all spoken for, but if those folks are outliers, I'm not
sure their needs should drive meeting policy. To figure this out, we really
need some survey of the attendees to find out how *uniquely* helpful the
unstructured time slots are to resolving conflicts for collaboration.

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 17:03:06 -0800

Puzzling about the CC line, and have reduced it somewhat. I am a paid attendee at IETF 104, and got a bounce from [email-masked] saying that mere mortals can't post to it.

> On Feb 25, 2019, at 1:36 PM, Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Fred Baker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
> While a neat idea, it’s not currently possible because I don’t save any private data. And while no user is associated with that data, (I don’t even create users), it is something that could be collected anonymously in the future. There’s a lot that could be done with anonymous statistics or even creating actual users (like automatic blue sheet sign in using Bluetooth LE Proximity sensors or locating colleagues or subscribing to notifications), but I haven’t had time to think through the GDPR implications.
> 
> Tom

OK, I'm confused. There is this app, which runs on IOS or Android. I don't know where the data is stored, but I know I can tell it what WGs I care about and it will be displayed both on my phone, and on my laptop in a calendar called "IETFers". If it can get from my phone to my calendar on my laptop, it can get to somewhere else. I'm suggesting that the "somewhere else" might anonymize the data and summarize it in some useful way.

Is that "every IETFer?" No. But I'll bet it's a large sample...

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 07:48:29 -0500

Ted Lemon <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > they have good data. I’m saying they don’t have good data. The fact
    > that you have a conflict is not good data. It’s an anecdote. I don’t
    > have a conflict.
    > That’s also an anecdote. Anecdotes aren’t useful guidance here.

I also think that the RTG area has had very good conflict resolution in the
past, and that they don't have a lot of cross-area participants.  That is,
this agenda, which for many of us, is average for conflicts, is very
surprising for some RTG area people, because they suddendly are experiencing
what the rest of us have experienced for a decade.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 11:49:59 -0500

Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> An even better approach, although it delays feedback by one meeting,
    >> would be to look into the IETFers Application data. People list what
    >> they want to attend for the purpose of calendar maintenance. That would
    >> inform the next meeting's agenda development.

    > While a neat idea, it’s not currently possible because I don’t save any
    > private data. And while no user is associated with that data, (I don’t
    > even create users), it is something that could be collected anonymously
    > in the future. There’s a lot that could be done with anonymous
    > statistics or even creating actual users (like automatic blue sheet
    > sign in using Bluetooth LE Proximity sensors or locating colleagues or
    > subscribing to notifications), but I haven’t had time to think through
    > the GDPR implications.

Your GDPR concerns are a good point.
I don't think we need to go to BTLE to see if you are actually there.
In particular, that fails to catch the case where people wanted to be there.

Among those of us that don't use your app, but rather use the datatracker ics
creation tool, we should have data in the logs about what people selected.
Alas, Google calendar does not you edit the calendar URL, so it's hard to
update what you want to add/remove items.  So I added a layer of indirection:

cd /ssw/docs/SSW/ietf/meeting/ietf104

curl -s >agenda.ics 'https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/agenda.ics#6lo,6man,6tisch,dnssd,homenet,lwig,gaia,hrpc,v6ops,opsawg,netconf,dnsop,anima,babel,bier,roll,tokbind,teep,suit,secevent,secdispatch,rats,ipsecme,ace,acme,dots,lamps,core,cbor,capport,cacao,ksk,smart'

and I add this agenda.ics file to my calendar program(s).
agenda.html takes the WG names as #foo,bar, while agenda.ics takes them as ?foo,bar)

What this does *not* tell you is which items I added for "like", and which
ones I added because it's a must attend.  Also I admit that this time I just
copy and pasted from last time, and added a few things.

In particular, part of this exercise is for me to see what conflicts I have.
I wish I could intelligently subscribe to a calendar entry such that I'd get
updates if it moved, but actually have it in my calendar, not have a new
calendar.  Instead, I'm force to copy entries to my calendar to remember how
I've decided to resolve the conflict, and that breaks the updates (such as
room changes).  I suppose I should use your app and star things, but it's
just too many moving parts :-)