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

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 31 March 2010 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 363A33A67B5 for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 9vOEQkGTET4n for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stewe.org (stewe.org [85.214.122.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53EEF3A6782 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.104] (unverified [24.5.132.232]) by stewe.org (SurgeMail 3.9e) with ESMTP id 629733-1743317 for multiple; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:02:54 +0200
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:02:40 -0700
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: thompson@ieee.org, Melinda Shore <shore@arsc.edu>
Message-ID: <C7D81770.209BF%stewe@stewe.org>
Thread-Topic: [77attendees] Ad hoc meetings (Was: Re: Bar BoF: ip traceback)
Thread-Index: AcrQhwGhBlb//CYG30CAjtV6HwzZCw==
In-Reply-To: <4BB2BFD0.6050403@ieee.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: 24.5.132.232
X-Authenticated-User: stewe@stewe.org
X-ORBS-Stamp: Your IP (24.5.132.232) was found in the spamhaus database. http://www.spamhaus.net
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 04:02:29 -0000

Hi Geoff,

Not sure I buy this argument.  And I'm a fairly antitrust-sensible person.

In fact, I would argue quite the opposite:

"A bar BOF is not an organized IETF activity, even if occasionally IETF
logistical resources are being used for convenience.  The IETF does not take
any responsibility for non-IETF activities.  Bar-BOF participants are on
their own to ensure that their behavior is in conformance with the law,
including antitrust law."

My hunch is that it all boils down to the question whether the IETF, as an
organization, wishes to see the bar BOF concept as an IETF hosted/sponsored
event, or just a bunch of engineers that happen to be co-located at an IETF
meeting get together to do something outside of the IETF's organized
context.  My understanding is that the historical precedence clearly is the
latter.  Even the TAO recognizes a bar BOF not as an IETF activity, but
lists it under "Other General Things", along with important subjects such as
hallway discussions, and the advise to never get between a hungry IETFer and
his/her cookies.  Just because, recently, name and spirit of a bar BOF have
been stretched to the point of failure (to avoid the term "violated"), they
have not become an organized IETF activity.

Stephan

P.s.: what's next?  The Scotch BOF requiring Blue Sheets?





On 3.30.2010 20:21 , "Geoff Thompson" <thompson@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 3/30/10 4:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule
>> 
>> Why?
> In an attempt to keep the IETF in control of things that could be
> construed to have the appearance of anti-trust activities.
> Also, to establish that the IETF has been diligent in keeping the folks
> at the IETF within the straight and narrow of legally permitted
> activities for competitors.
> 
> Meetings where competitors make agreements to cooperate are legally suspect.
> Standards organizations have to exercise care to protect themselves and
> their participants.
> 
> Geoff
>> 
>> Melinda
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 77attendees mailing list
>> 77attendees@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> 77attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees