IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 30 March 2010 18:51 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
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 F1CF83A6AB7 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ufYwipvEIt-r for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C4E3A6AAF for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Aj4CALHlsUuQ/uCWe2dsb2JhbACDEpgcFQEBCwsiBhynQYg+kGOBK4JragQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.51,336,1267401600"; d="scan'208";a="58759587"
Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.150]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2010 18:51:46 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-55-82-147.cisco.com (dhcp-10-55-82-147.cisco.com [10.55.82.147]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o2UIpkVx008796; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:51:46 GMT
Message-ID: <4BB24841.2080109@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:51:45 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.2pre) Gecko/20100302 Lanikai/3.1b1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
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> <4BAC239C.4060004@gmail.com> <A6562703-7EF4-4B9E-9E78-AB30F804DD45@tzi.org> <4BB0B975.7040100@joelhalpern.com> <DADD7EAD88AB484D8CCC328D40214CCD0167972D37@EXPO10.exchange.mit.edu> <m2k4stbq9g.wl%randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2k4stbq9g.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Thomas Hardjono <hardjono@MIT.EDU>, "77attendees@ietf.org" <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: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:51:19 -0000

  On 3/30/10 8:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> too many bar bofs obviates/undercuts the purpose of real BOFs.
> then i would take away the message that 'real' bofs are not meeting the
> needs of folk trying to get work done.

I think there's some truth to this.  My recollection, and Randy can 
correct this if I'm wrong, was that the bar was set relatively high for 
an official BoF as space during the day difficult to find, requiring 
careful balancing of interests.  So-called "bar bofs" have always been 
part of the meeting in an informal way, but now it seems we are 
formalizing them in some way.  So long as the bar for their allowance is 
relatively low, I see no reason not to allow them.  But I am 
disappointed that they are nowhere near bars.

Eliot

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email