IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi> Wed, 31 March 2010 08:30 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 AF69D3A6BA7 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:30:41 -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 g3fwA5pGhUSX for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:30:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-3.hut.fi (smtp-3.hut.fi [130.233.228.93]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA193A6C68 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 01:26:50 -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 o2V8RFoI007254; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:15 +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 00928-934; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:15 +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 o2V8R7V4007228; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:07 +0300
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DCB21E12D; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:07 +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 56DT8M9fbGvg; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from pc70.netlab.hut.fi (pc70.netlab.hut.fi [130.233.154.70]) by smtp.netlab.hut.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12B861E008; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:27:03 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <4BB3073D.8050709@netlab.tkk.fi>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:26:37 +0300
From: Joerg Ott <jo@netlab.tkk.fi>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Macintosh/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <C7D81770.209BF%stewe@stewe.org> <4BB302F5.1010900@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <4BB302F5.1010900@cs.tcd.ie>
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: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:30:41 -0000

Couldn't agree more.

Joerg

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> 77attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email