Re: [97attendees] Liked the Shared Conference Room

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, November 17, 2016 16:53 +0900 George Michaelson
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Used it, appreciated it. I suspect as word spreads we'll find
> we want more, and this begs many questions about what IETF is,
> because these things, ephemeral meetings we all do, are
> becoming a stronger driver than WG activity for some people.
> 
> The assumption we want more of these short-term-use easy
> private access spaces begs questions I don't think I
> understand.

Wasn't there, but two observations:

(1) If the hotel or conference facility doesn't provide informal
sitting/gathering space (with the typical lobby coffee area/ bar
as an example), then some sort of reserve-able meeting space may
be very important.

(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).  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?

Just trying to think ahead.

    best,
    john