ISSUE: Meeting scheduling

Spencer Dawkins spencer at
Tue Jun 24 12:42:13 CEST 2003

There's probably a micro aspect to this, as well as
a macro aspect -
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?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker at>
To: "John C Klensin" <john-ietf at>
Cc: <problem-statement at>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: ISSUE: Meeting scheduling

> 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/

More information about the Problem-statement mailing list