Re: [77attendees] Ad hoc meetings (Was: Re: Bar BoF: ip traceback)

Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi> Mon, 29 March 2010 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
X-Original-To: 77attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 77attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44D413A68D5 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SEG13E4k7X0Q for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-3.hut.fi (smtp-3.hut.fi [130.233.228.93]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED79C3A6858 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) by smtp-3.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o2TIqtDo015406; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:55 +0300
Received: from smtp-3.hut.fi ([130.233.228.93]) by localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20299-894; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:55 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.177]) by smtp-3.hut.fi (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id o2TIqjFt015359; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:45 +0300
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FE81E12D; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:45 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at luuri.netlab.hut.fi
Received: from smtp.netlab.hut.fi ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (luuri.netlab.hut.fi [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id P7hmiVCEOR6L; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:41 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.7] (a91-154-97-129.elisa-laajakaista.fi [91.154.97.129]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2B1651E015; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:41 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4BB0F6DF.9020805@netlab.tkk.fi>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:52:15 +0300
From: Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
References: <4BA8BCE3.5020309@is.naist.jp> <4BA95B6A.5040707@is.naist.jp><4BAB0464.2010307@is.naist.jp> <4BAB7A4D.7070904@piuha.net> <8133D17D-D9B6-40A6-AE9B-80BF90A5223D@checkpoint.com> <050005AF2D0F493AB38639A33748E8D6@china.huawei.com> <8B0A9FCBB9832F43971E38010638454F03E24ED320@SISPE7MB1.commscope.com> <4BABD0B2.9050003@piuha.net> <4BABDB19.8060403@gmail.com> <027f01cacc69$4847ae10$d8d70a30$@org> <23E6E51A-5D3B-4F94-B32F-7F3545003E03@cisco.com> <53720E57-D96D-458A-8178-5CC3DB496FAD@nokia.com> <4BB0552B.4010106@piuha.net> <2E26D729-0A4F-47AD-ADBD-684C553A6230@arsc.edu> <CBF228AC-9497-4D8A-BCE9-E7034DFADB9C@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CBF228AC-9497-4D8A-BCE9-E7034DFADB9C@tzi.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TKK-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.1.2-hutcc at katosiko.hut.fi
Cc: 77attendees@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [77attendees] Ad hoc meetings (Was: Re: Bar BoF: ip traceback)
X-BeenThere: 77attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <77attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees>, <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/77attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:77attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees>, <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:52:53 -0000

Maybe this was said before: the IETF seems to be over-organizing
things.  Bar BOFs used to deliberately be informal gatherings.
Maybe there is a need for more formal ones; maybe they are something
else.

But the IETF should not start formalizing informal methods.  What
next?  Do we do pre-Bar-BOFs as informal gatherings?  Will we then
at some point come up with agendas and room allocations for pre-Bar-BOFs
as well?

One thing not to forget is the perception from the outside how long
standardization in the IETF takes.  We should avoid causing statements
like "Well, you need to do informal opinion building, then 2-3 bar bofs,
then you get to do 2 BOFs, and then -- after 2 year, you may end up
with a working group..."

I see us overdoing it here.

Joerg


Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2010, at 19:54, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to see informal
>> gatherings stay as informal as possible, including not being
>> able to use IETF meeting A/V equipment. 
> 
> As I explained, that would be a mistake.
> 
> Gruesse, Carsten
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> 77attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>