Subject: [v6ops] V6ops interim meeting announcement Sept 29th 2012.

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:58:39 -0700

While there are some details still to be worked out it's time to get the 
framework in place for the interim to coincide with the end of RIPE 65, 
Amsterdam, 24 - 28 September 2012. <http://ripe65.ripe.net/>

We believe that the location will be:

Hotel Okura <http://www.okura.nl/>

Ferdinand Bolstraat 333
1072 LH Amsterdam
+31 (0) 20 678 7493

however that is not yet gospel I am told.

The plan as it stands know is to attempt to time the meeting to 
accommodate remote participants in North American I have requested that 
it start at 1600cest. that said there are still a lot of details to be 
worked out. and and time one a Saturday is going to be an inconvenience 
to some (sorry) who might otherwise make it in the flesh or online.

Things we can plan for however are an interim document submission 
deadline two weeks out from the meeting itself. Too be considered for 
inclusion in the interim agenda new or revised documented should be 
submitted to the IETF document system by 23:59 UTC on Sept 14th.

more details will follow as we get them.
<http://ripe65.ripe.net/>

---

From: Niall O'Reilly <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:43:51 +0100

On 12 Aug 2012, at 22:58, joel jaeggli wrote:

> The plan as it stands know is to attempt to time the meeting to accommodate remote participants in North American I have requested that it start at 1600cest. that said there are still a lot of details to be worked out. and and time one a Saturday is going to be an inconvenience to some (sorry) who might otherwise make it in the flesh or online.

	It may be worth noting that RIPE meetings usually finish before
	lunch on the Friday.  Would 16:00 CEST on Friday 28 September be 
	worth considering instead of 24 hours later?

	0,02
	Niall

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 06:23:48 +0900

Joel:
>> accommodate remote participants in North American I have requested
>> that it start at 1600cest. that said there are still a lot of details
>> to be worked out. and and time one a Saturday is going to be an
>> inconvenience to some (sorry) who might otherwise make it in the
>> flesh or online.
> worth considering instead of 24 hours later?

this 16:00 cest stuff is nonsense.  think of what it does to the asia
pacific.

when we meet in north america, we meet at times convenient to north
america.  when in ...  need i go on?  the world is round and the
internet is not an american property.  we need to get over it.

when on vega, be vague.

randy, in tokyo

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:50:05 -0700

> internet is not an american property.  we need to get over it.
If it's a dumb idea I get to shoulder a big portion of the blame for 
that. I take it you do not believe that this attempt at optimization is 
a worthwhile one. I disagree, but not strongly.

Given the opportunity to pick a time that extends the window available 
for convenient remote participation with the goal of maximizing the 
opportunity for remote participation, what would you pick? If I had two 
or more of these to program or they were entirely virtual interims, I 
would probably rotate the times such that the inconvenience were shared, 
as it stands right now we have one.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:06:30 +0900

> that.

do i get a refund?

> I take it you do not believe that this attempt at optimization is 
> a worthwhile one.

optimization of what?  us-centricism?

> opportunity for remote participation

i do not even understand that

> what would you pick?

08:30 or 09:00 to 17:00ish local time on the 29th.

randy

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:28:15 -0700

> optimization of what?  us-centricism?
So, The proposal was based on looking back at the breakdown of ietf 
attendees by region across the last couple of meetings. I looked at 84 
83 82. If selecting a time for an interim on  the basis of it being a 
reasonable time for the local time and remote attendees from about +2 to 
-7 is inappropriate then I guess I'm wrong, or I shouldn't do that.

I'd like to hear that.

If we had more than one of these in the queue I belive that it would be 
most appropiate to share that consideration around. As of now we don't.

I don't think 0900 to 1700 is necessary or warranted. We've been 
assiduous about fitting into no more than 4.5 hours during an IETF 
meeting I think 4 will work in this case.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:30:42 +0900

when we met physically in paris and had remote participation, did we
schedule the meetings from local afternoon to midnight?

i am rather shocked at the international rudeness of this proposal and
the message it sends to the world.

randy

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 22:09:16 -0700

> schedule the meetings from local afternoon to midnight?
IETF meetings have scheduled sessions that run as late as  19:40

A meeting of not more than 4 hours starting at 1600 would end at 2000 
which is a reasonable time to break for dinner in a cosmopolitan city.
> the message it sends to the world.
I never proposed that.

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 14:18:54 +0800

I had noticed the arrangement when the Thursday minute was came up.
Since the IETF#84 Thursday meeting was conflicted with Softwires, I
guess a number of participants did not have chance to voice on the
meeting. So such interim meeting may have lots of people will not be
able to go, can we ask how many people couldn't be there?

BRs

Gang

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:55:37 -0700

> able to go, can we ask how many people couldn't be there?
Just as an observation, relatively little material should directly 
overlap between softwire and v6ops. We shifted presentations around so 
that drafts that would benefit from the input of the attendees of 
softwire were on Friday morning, likewise the discussion that came back 
from sunset4. we hope that was sufficient.

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:30:53 +0800

> from sunset4. we hope that was sufficient.

There are less overlapped document, but there are more overlapped people
between V6OPS and softwire who need to be asked before the decision.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:28:53 +0100

> between V6OPS and softwire who need to be asked before the decision.

Are there not also multiple interim meetings being held after the RIPE meeting, not just v6ops?

If so, do we know what these are, and when they are scheduled? Are there clashes to be avoided?

Tim

---

From: Nick Hilliard <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:54:48 +0100

> 	worth considering instead of 24 hours later?

I could get to a session on Friday 2012/09/28, but definitely not on the
saturday.

There is a lot of value in getting cross-pollination between the RIPE
meeting and the IETF process.  A friday session would help with this.  By
saturday, most people will have gone home (including me).

I'd also see value in starting significantly earlier than 16:00.
Regardless of the timezone considerations, if a session like this ends at
20:00, it means that people who live in europe will not be able to get an
evening flight home, which means more hotel expenses.

Nick

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:58:31 +0100

> evening flight home, which means more hotel expenses.

I agree with this.

Tim

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:48:06 -0400

> Are there not also multiple interim meetings being held after the RIPE meeting, not just v6ops?

Yes, I believe that there are...

> 
> If so, do we know what these are, and when they are scheduled?

No. I know that there is a SIDR interim ("The SIDR working group plans a face-to-face interim meeting on Sat 29 Sep 2012 in Amsterdam. The meeting will be held 0900-1700.") and possibly an OpSec interim as well…

> Are there clashes to be avoided?
> 

Yes, no, and / or maybe. Depends… :-P

W

> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

---
Schizophrenia beats being alone.

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:21:43 +0100

> Yes, I believe that there are...

Thanks for the confirmation - I've prodded the WG chair mail list.

Tim