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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 25 March 2010 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 1183F3A6944 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.012, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 GeZuVkM2n1sE for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f213.google.com (mail-fx0-f213.google.com [209.85.220.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D403A6803 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so1489517fxm.29 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bD1B6eSKc36nLY6Q/AJ9fCBgQUC8WRGya5Fksoi5CXk=; b=KSaBV9jpTHoLgcEppcBkw7hJ0eGpWoacrN8Bv/VJUehzterr6irRiJohKGTpVTFBif UDnZ+DGH4lF3ER5HRCCbz0j8e8MolaxD7GdHfiQX27BuH6huUzYgNDkwCQkEhghPbtT/ CVAiW8Eq97+/c1kRJnqWk9P0LKI2P8DztXj/I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=c8gdYLbmU9vuk/twK+Y1BLsKFsG+SVhNXrILkPIIqYBfX9pBiW+5pcMakfcLVhhA/V ZBj9r5iwuJwX1xG02lNZzS3/FLKDL02A+IUiFcnBtIsmIRMQafwRK7xkZD0QE597lJ7z zps7J1bEMBmFSaLPnbBd/pccyGn/H5aSZvfFg=
Received: by 10.102.149.4 with SMTP id w4mr889817mud.34.1269553951949; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.27.105] ([130.129.27.105]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n10sm736516mue.12.2010.03.25.14.52.28 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 25 Mar 2010 14:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BABDB19.8060403@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 10:52:25 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
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>
In-Reply-To: <4BABD0B2.9050003@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com>, "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: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:52:14 -0000

On 2010-03-26 10:08, Jari Arkko wrote:
...
> In any case, I'm not sure its a good trend that our Bar BoFs are
> becoming more like official meetings, with rooms, presentations, etc.

Rather to my surprise, I found myself running a barless bar BOF with
at least 40 people in the room, and we needed microphone discipline,
both so that everyone could hear and to avoid the discussion fragmenting.

Clearly, this discussion could never have happened in the bar.

That's what happens when you announce bar BOFs to 1200 people,
I guess. But if you don't announce them, and dont't use a decent
room, some people will feel excluded.

It's a dilemma. But I'd rather we avoid any rule making, except the
pragmatic rule that the secretariat needs a nod from an AD before
allocating a room, since that is a finite and possibly costly
resource. A bar BOF with rules doesn't seem like the right thing.

    Brian