Re: [97attendees] Liked the Shared Conference Room

[Lee Howard <[e-mail]>]

On 11/24/16, 3:56 AM, "97attendees on behalf of John C Klensin"
<[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>(2) Independent of side conversations that are largely unrelated
>to IETF work, people should remember that our IPR requirements
>and other procedures more or less assume that we've only got two
>flavors of f2f meetings for IETF work: WG meetings that are
>announced in advance, open, produce minutes or equivalent
>meeting notes, etc. and design team meetings (on which there are
>some explicit constraints).

We also have BoFs and bar BoFs.

The Note Well says "any statement made within the context of an IETF
activity is considered an "IETF Contribution².²
And also, "Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or
other
function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity,
 group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this
notice.  Please consult RFC 5378
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5378.txt> and RFC 3979
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3979.txt> for details.²


>If we are going to encourage and
>legitimize potentially-closed small group meetings by providing
>space, sign up sheets, and other facilities, do those
>requirements and procedures need review and possible revision,
>particularly to lower the odds that such meetings can be
>mistaken for IETF-facilitated secret cabals to influence the
>content of standards?

I think the Note Well, along with the RFCs, is clear enough. But it¹s a
good question for discussion if you or others think otherwise.

Lee


>
>Just trying to think ahead.
>
>    best,
>    john