Subject: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:26:49 -0800 (PST)

The IESG is seriously considering a WG and BOF scheduling experiment.  The
goal of the experiment is to provide WG agenda sooner and also provide
more time to craft BOF proposals.

The proposed experiment includes three parts.  First, schedule all BOFs
for Monday afternoon.  Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
proposal to ADs.

Please let us know whether you support this experiment.  Discussion is
welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

On behalf of the IESG,
Russ Housley

---

From: "Richard L. Barnes" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:29:18 +0800

If we put the BOFs on Friday afternoon instead, wouldn't that make the 
attendance numbers an even stronger gauge of interest?

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:40:04 +0800

On 11/8/2010 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> Please let us know whether you support this experiment.

1.  Can you provide some rational for the details of the experiment?

2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:42:33 +0800

> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF

I am in favor of the goals but concerned about conflicts between BOFs.
BOFs explore possible new work items for the IETF, and some decisions
made in BOFs can be significant for the direction of IETF work, and hard
to undo after the fact.  I am more likely to be unhappy about a
scheduling conflict between BOFs than between a BOF and a WG that is
continuing in its ordinary work, so I like having BOFs spread out
through the week.  Have you thought about sensitivity of conflicts, and
if so what were your thoughts?

Scott

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:57:20 +1300

On 2010-11-08 15:26, The IESG wrote:
> for Monday afternoon.  

Hmm. How many non-overlapping time slots? It would be extremely
frustrating if there was a lot of overlap between BOFs. Some of us
are interested in almost any new topic. My first reaction is to prefer
the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce
the problem of clashes.

> Second, schedule WGs before we know which BOFs will
> be held.  

That is a feature of concentrating the BOFs, but I'm not sure
that it's particularly valuable. It moves the clashing problem,
but doesn't remove it.

> Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF
> proposal to ADs.

Do you mean: make the BOF request cutoff later? If so, that is
a feature, but since people are deadline driven, I'm not sure
that moving the deadline is a major advantage.

> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

It depends on my first question: how many BOF-BOF clashes would
we get as a result?

     Brian

---

From: Aaron Falk <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:05:00 +0800

On 11/8/10 10:57 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>   First, schedule all BOFs  for Monday afternoon.

Strongly agree!

  --aaron

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:45:36 -0700

Maybe for the experiment we should also move the Social to Friday
evening: 1) it won't interfere with IP meeting time; 2) less people so
better chance of getting a ticket; 3) more folks will stay for Friday
meetings; 4) IETF meeting will be over so we can let our hair down -
oops that's not a problem now.

	geoff

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 22:53:37 -0500

One of the factors that frequently determines the outcome of a piece
of work is how it is broken down into parts. So the scope of WGs in
formation can be the most significant factor in determining what they
produce.

Putting the BOFs at a known time would be very helpful for that
reason. Having the BOFs on Monday seems like a useful idea. Having
them only on Monday afternoon seems like it is going to cause rather
too many conflicts.

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Scott Brim <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>

-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 13:22:57 +0800

>> the BOFs spread out. I'm not sure that concentrating them will reduce

As do I.  I attend BoFs across areas, with interest in looking at new
work in general.  I've often thought we should *never* schedule two
BoFs in the same time slot.  I'd hate to have guaranteed conflicts,
allowing me to attend only one or two BoFs when a dozen were
scheduled.

Barry

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:24:22 +0100

I think having the BOFs early in the week is a good idea but I'd modify
the proposal a bit.

Background:  At this meeting, we have 8 BOFs.  There are also 7 or 8
meetings in each of the sessions (9-11:30, 1-3, 3-4).

Scheduling all 8 BOFs at the same time will maximize overlap between them
but otherwise not affect the schedule.   However, the overlap does
not make this a good idea.  Also, the lengths of the BOFs will vary, so
one size fits all is not a good idea.

If we schedule 4 BOFs at the time and have NO WG meetings in parallel,
reduce overlap for the BOFs BUT at the same time create more conflicts
for the rest of the week, as 8 WG sessions have to be put elsewhere in
the schedule.   This is not a good idea either.    4 BOFs with meetings
in parallel works better.  4 BOFs with 4 regular meetings at the same
time does not have much impact on the rest of the schedule, but there
is still a fair chance of overlap.

So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week,
and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.xs4all.nl/~henku
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I confirm today what I denied yesterday.            Anonymous Politician.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:55:00 +0100

I support the effort, but not the timing.

Maybe having an hour reserved at each end of the day for BoFs would be a compromise (just an idea popping right now).

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de
> Henk Uijterwaal
> Envoyé : lundi 8 novembre 2010 13:24
> Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Objet : Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
> 
>

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 04:43:43 -0500

>>>>> "Henk" == Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]> writes:
    Henk> So, I'd take it a step further: Starting Monday morning, 2 of the 7
    Henk> or 8 meeting slots in each session are reserved for BOFs and the other
    Henk> 4 or 5 for WG meetings.  That way, we'll have all the BOFs done by
    Henk> Tuesday lunchtime, giving time to discuss the results during the week,
    Henk> and impact on the rest of the schedule is minimal.

I think this is the best idea.
If the rooms for the BOFs are clearly identified, then we can also
easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that
occurs most mornings.

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] [email-masked] http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition.

---

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:07:55 +0800

Dave Crocker said:

"1.  Can you provide some rationale for the details of the experiment?

2.  Is one goal to maximize the attendance conflicts among BOFs?"

1. In terms of rationale, I am reminded of Kinky Freedman's slogan, when
running for Governor or Texas:  "Why Not?"
(see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146289,00.html for details).
However, I do admit that this
approach can sometimes backfire (see
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/07/kinky-friedman-endorses-do
g-for-texas-governor/ ). 

2. With experiments like this, the effects can be unpredictable.  So it's
possible that the experiment could *minimize* attendance conflicts at BOFs
-- by minimizing attendance.

---

From: "Russ Housley" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:21:14 -0500 (EST)

> that moving the deadline is a major advantage.

The deadline for BOF requests comes too soon after the end of one IETF
meeting for the next one.  We are hearing complaints, and subjectively,
the quality of the request write-ups do reflect this situation.  So, yes,
the intent is to allow more time by shifting the BOF request deadline.

Russ

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 18:26:13 +0800

On 11/8/10 10:26 AM, The IESG wrote:
> schedule all BOFs for Monday afternoon.

I think this is a bad idea for the reasons stated earlier. This reduces 
cross-protocol review more than the minimal amount that is going on now.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 18:28:17 +0800

On 11/8/2010 6:07 PM, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> Dave Crocker said:
>
> "1.  Can you provide some rationale for the details of the experiment?b

Well, the IETF rocks, but I didn't know it it rocks and rolls.

And we usually make some effort at having reasons for changing running systems. 
  Something about stability and utility...

So, there have been plenty of postings noting the core, conceptual problem with 
concentrating BOFs together:  It creates a kind of attendance pattern sampling 
fragility.

In any event, the 'why not' logic suggests trying a different scheduling 
configuration for every meeting, since there is essentially an infinite variety 
of combinations.  So why not try them all?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:48:57 -0500

> more time to craft BOF proposals.

I think the goals are good.

> be held.  Finally, provide an additional four weeks to deliver BOF

I think that part 1 is potentially a problem, because of the same
conflict issues others have identified.

Scheduling all the BOFs at the beginning of the week actually does not
address the goals as stated.  It might address an additional goal,
which is that one can take advantage of the rest of the week to deal
with the BOF results.  But that advantage might not be enough to
offset the disadvantages of a lot of conflicts.  Also, whether there
is such an advantage could be measured later, in a different
experiment.

Therefore, I support the idea of undertaking this experiment without
the part where all the BOFs are scheduled for Monday afternoon.
Instead, spread the BOFs out as now.  I realise that this might
increase the chances that a BOF will cause scheduling conflicts for
ADs.

It would also be nice if we had success criteria for the experiment,
so we have some way of deciding what to do with the results of the
experiment.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 04:49:29 -0600

Assuming, of course, that we continue to expect that the IESG will "do the 
right thing, whatever that turns out to be" ...

> I think this is the best idea.

I agree with this - front-load the BOFs, but not to the point where they 
collide with related BOFs ("do the right thing, whatever that turns out to 
be" ...)

> easily give the BOFs 1hr slots rather than the 2.5 hour slots that

My understanding of what BOFs are supposed to do, is that WG-forming BOFs 
should be demonstrating that there is a group of people who will do the work 
described in a proposed charter, and that they roughly agree that the 
proposed charter describes what they want to do.

If that's so, we should rarely have a WG-forming BOF that runs over an 
hour - and if THAT'S so, it will be easier to schedule BOFs early in the 
week without colliding with other BOFs.

The "bunch of people get together and talk" kind of BOF don't need to be so 
constrained on time - I'm focused on WG-forming BOFs when I say this.

Thanks,

Spencer

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 05:49:47 -0500

________________________________________
From: [email-masked] [[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Russ Housley [[email-masked]]

_________________________________________

I would think that the more formal the session, the longer in advance that the need for the session will be reliably predicted.  Since BOFs are less formal, the deadline for them should be *later* than for WG sessions, preferably very shortly before the IETF meeting.

Dale

---

From: Ross Callon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 06:25:10 -0500

WGs already have a charter and WG chairs. It would be *very* unusual to decide to revoke a WG's charter between the time that the request to meet has been made and the secretariat puts together a draft IETF charter (much less unusual to update a WG charter in a way that is fully consistent with the meeting request). 

BOF requests come in with proposals that vary widely in terms of how clear or how focused they are, how important the work appears to be, and so on. They require some degree of evaluation on the part of the responsible ADs (with input from appropriate others). Thus they take more time to evaluate. 

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Worley, Dale R (Dale)
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 5:50 AM
To: Russ Housley; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment

Dale

---

From: Kurt Zeilenga <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 14:28:51 -0800

> welcome on the mail list and the plenary on Wednesday evening.

I would only support this experiment if all the BOFs were not only scheduled at the same time but in the same room.  :-)

-- Kurt

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 16:54:16 -0800

During the IPv6 panel at the plenary last night, representatives
of several major service providers discussed their experiences
with IPv6. It became clear that many of their experiments involve technologies that delegate Provider-Aggregated (PA) IPv6 prefixes
to the customer instead of Provider-Independent (PI) ones. This
fact did not seem to be at the forefront of the service providers'
use case considerations, and perhaps needs to be brought to a
level of awareness in the community.

Many years ago, there was an extended debate on this list regarding
PA vs. PI. Emotions ran high, and in the end there seemed to be
a consensus favoring PI. Have we forgotten about that? Is it time
to re-open the debate?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 14:09:28 +1300

> a consensus favoring PI. Have we forgotten about that? Is it time

Not on this list, please.

   Brian

---

From: Geoff Mulligan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 20:32:40 -0700

geoff

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:47:29 +0800

Hi,

part of the justification is to have the BOF early in the week so
people can discuss it during the week.

dbh 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 10:29 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]; The IESG
> Subject: Re: Proposed WG and BOF Scheduling Experiment
> 
> Discussion is

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:58:42 +0800

Like others that have chimed in, I'm just concerned that it will be
difficult to attend multiple BOFs of interest if they're all scheduled
against each other.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:26:38 +0800

> people can discuss it during the week.

Yes, that's important, and better than what we have now.

I think that of what I've heard so far, the idea of scheduling 2 BOFs at
a time, all of Monday and whatever it takes of Tuesday, sounds most
likely to work.

---

From: "Worley, Dale R (Dale)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 02:54:58 -0500

_______________________________________
From: Ross Callon [[email-masked]]

Thus [BOF proposals] take more time to evaluate [than requests for WG sessions].
________________________________________

I'm sure that's true.  But that doesn't change the fact that a useful BOF idea is likely to be conceived with less lead time before an IETF meeting than a need for a WG session.  Do we organize the schedule process based on what is most valuable or what makes the ADs lives easier?  (quite seriously)

Dale

---

From: Eric Burger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 07:47:38 +0800

I would offer we do the venture capital lightning round thing.

Schedule a *single* 2.5 hour slot for *all* BOFs.  Each BOF proposer gets 5 minutes to make their pitch and 10 minutes of discussion.  I would bet that 15 minutes of FOCUSED attention would give the IAB and IESG enough input as to (1) is there community interest, (2) is there community expertise, and (3) is the IETF the right place for the activity to occur.

Since Dave Crocker and John Klensin need to be at every BOF, this makes it easy for them to attend every one :-)