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

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Huh?  Bar BoFs == informal discussions are subject to the Note Well?
Surely you mean BoFs proper?
--Richard



On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Marshall Eubanks <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-31 08:30, Scott Brim wrote:
>>>
>>> Eliot Lear allegedly wrote on 03/30/2010 14:51 EDT:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The threashold for a real BOF might not be too high considering how
>>> important they are in the IETF, but people find it intimidating to
>>> figure out how to do what they need to do, and seek other paths with
>>> less resistance.
>>>
>>> (Personally I don't mind at all that bar BOFs aren't near bars.)
>>
>> My bottom line is that we had better stick to the rule of having no
>> rules for bar BOFs, except that they can't camp in contracted meeting
>> rooms without a nod from the meeting management.
>
> They are subject to the Note Well. That is certainly a rule.
>
> Regards
> Marshall
>
>
>> They certainly shouldn't
>> have any right to expect ADs or WG chairs to be present.
>>
>> I like Randy's point about having some FCFS meeting space available,
>> but that is probably just a financial issue.
>>
>>    Brian
>> _______________________________________________
>> 77attendees mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 77attendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees
>