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

[Lars Eggert <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On 2010-3-29, at 20:54, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On Mar 28, 2010, at 11:22 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:
>> Secondly, as Brian pointed out there is also an aspect of fairness  
>> and openness. Maybe you *want* to find other like minded people that  
>> you didn't already know. And those people may want to participate.  
>> So I'm not sure the answer is closed meetings, either.
> 
> Right.  I think keeping the process as open as possible
> should be a goal

right. I didn't mean to imply that bar BOFs need to be closed, I meant to point out that controlling attendance, by more carefully inviting the folks you want, will let you run a more productive meeting. 

As others have pointed out, sometimes you need to run a large meeting (e.g., Smartgrid or 6LOWAPP), but that is much harder to pull together successfully than a small meeting.

> I'd like to see informal
> gatherings stay as informal as possible, including not being
> able to use IETF meeting A/V equipment.

Exactly.

>  I also think Scott's
> point about the bar <har har har> on BOF approval being so
> high as to create incentives for people to do the semi-formal
> bar BOF thing is well-taken and merits serious consideration.

The issue is slots. We simply have too many WGs to schedule more than a handful of BOFs at each IETF. We already have significant issues with overlap; e.g., we needed to practically re-run the CONEX BOF at IETF-77 because routing folks couldn't make it during the IETF-76 BOF due to WG conflicts.

Lars