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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 31 March 2010 08:08 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 965DA3A67D3 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:08:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.437
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 FxRWsmMQaHqr for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.newbay.com (87-198-172-198.ptr.magnet.ie [87.198.172.198]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC4833A6A50 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A5736007C; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:30 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at newbay.com
Received: from mail.newbay.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.newbay.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D0FXZuG7MrBi; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:29 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mail01.newbay.com (mail01.newbay.com [192.168.12.25]) by mail.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E851360076; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:23 +0100 (IST)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail01.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F2D7C049; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:23 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at newbay.com
Received: from mail01.newbay.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail01.newbay.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hTDw0UbA-82k; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:22 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.12] (dsl-102-234.cust.imagine.ie [87.232.102.234]) by mail01.newbay.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81EC37C048; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:22 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <4BB302F5.1010900@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:08:21 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
References: <C7D81770.209BF%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <C7D81770.209BF%stewe@stewe.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:08:04 -0000

On 03/31/2010 05:02 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:
> P.s.: what's next?  The Scotch BOF requiring Blue Sheets?

Exactly. Too much pointless formality creeping in all the time.
That's a negative trend and is not IMO at all necessary.

So:

- Fewer to zero well-organised alcohol-free Barbie-BoFs next
time please.

- And more real bar-BoFs with no agenda and the alcohol option
for those that want it.

- If someone wants an empty room the secretariat should give
it to them if possible. Or you should just walk in and use
the space if no one else is there. We should just trust folks
for that, until there's a reason not to do so.

- Lars' draft should have security considerations. When a real
bar BoF lasts too long, there's much more chance of drunkenness,
loudness, questionable humour and other good things. With the
Barbie-BoFs, there's a higher probability of a full week's worth
of process-induced boredom leading to crappy security designs
being accepted.

S.