Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com> Tue, 04 June 2019 03:22 UTC

Return-Path: <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E781D12004B for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:22:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NmvQpYg1xznO for <eligibility-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82a.google.com (mail-qt1-x82a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 901FD120033 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jun 2019 20:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82a.google.com with SMTP id m29so6884391qtu.1 for <eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=NjZ6gB0lR8RnbTDkuxy5LMyvoxzJt4xXZYTTNR6tpBg=; b=Ca07VfK78ArVUSs8cA0tPiMXq3oPHrVwdffnCob8Mw2BRBRy/E+kgze788a0cx57DB zktzanpEje9DtVeH9l4z7b9UdOCl79ahqW46CxfJzsr7p6qs0fN7de4hTuODUd8EYPJT 9k6i9lp9upcL8uiGGvNMx72JfVrhLi5gjfvvdZ5wnncZiCs8wPWhUIFWe58UzSCZEHk2 RAAoJi1qJtIJ927kxVWbPL5MufPo2DbzP3dJuf6MyB5Pl1A5umUInTGqsuXDlwxjN+d7 mKVucTGhCMmP69+oYXvBgu5z5/UUqeSB83O37ETLB3O9oanRrxbXW2Gp7Yxqv23a/rxw +06g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=NjZ6gB0lR8RnbTDkuxy5LMyvoxzJt4xXZYTTNR6tpBg=; b=r6WH9/TNgy9Ja2pCh11uKT5CDRBv7M/zApJwS1xoqOuD84DCjM8Dlmb+5qqAchVY+l Hr16AyujvBfcVzD4rZU/Ojd6QBtB7vDwp2qbNClRLn27NOE4kE3hVpXYQUryLpJ6w6Oz puMCjMco/sUhAGjNGAdNtmhINbXBEsG0LxpwYwe2j+zJCLTgAcbVRr5czz+AW/eD9GjO OBngJcWUaiD82MmiHgSYB68mED2iRi9AuG2DqMW9HE9AgT1mIero+4O1l+v48M+1ebNz MXycILD5Cg0/btMKaTpK0eXp+c3X6TfWGad04Nvz1SejzaNKGW2ZeRmpUaHZjCeZ6v4M wkag==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWs5xZAgnfyX1wx+0btEAZ39b1dkchwQsIcjS2IxuDlqx8ap6Sf NoCcvuS0SwWQpVVcLVMbGYg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzapMX1lW1aNWJOGObfbXS8An1XIy5NYn4Vx6p0DtSkR2eaNi1ioKvnBOk8blWf9edV6sBfJw==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:b92f:: with SMTP id u47mr24457106qvf.94.1559618529466; Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.15] (45-19-110-76.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net. [45.19.110.76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z12sm1151059qkf.20.2019.06.03.20.22.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Jun 2019 20:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <D58B591C-9140-4273-AA11-59E2EBD101FE@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C25BAF3-58BB-4C03-9CC8-DC6FD39CC3CC"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 23:22:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com>
Cc: Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>, eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20190525144314.0e72bb68@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20190601204707.0bf89070@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/eligibility-discuss/8UWSQB6T_9gjxIn2rUTo3gv4RSs>
Subject: Re: [Eligibility-discuss] Virtual BoF for draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
X-BeenThere: eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <eligibility-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:eligibility-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss>, <mailto:eligibility-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 03:22:13 -0000

HI SM,
  First of all, let me state that I am supportive of a proposal for a virtual BoF that covers the topics you mentioned. I have gone over the proposal and I think it needs to be refined further. In my mind, a virtual BoF proposal needs to have the same amount of thinking put into the problem statement, the deliverables, the questions to be answered as a in-person BoF proposal in order to be successful. i.e. As an AD I would expect the virtual BoF proposal to receive the same level of scrutiny as an in-person BoF proposal. 

The problem statement in your mail concerning the virtual BoF, IMHO, does not fully cover the intent of the draft. e.g. It does not talk about why you are reducing the number of signatories. I think some text is required in this regard. 

I would like the virtual BoF to clarify the following aspects

1) Does the community believe there is a problem to solve?
2) Which of the change proposals does the community support. I think some of the proposals in your draft are fairly non-controversial (e.g. reducing the number of signatories) while the others (e.g. Allowing I* to do so) might be more controversial.
3) What are the deliverables you expect to have?
4) How much support and energy is there in the community to make this change?

Also, mention whether you would like this to be a working group forming BoF or not. One other suggestion I would make is to put the virtual BoF request into 

https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/ <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/>

So that it can be considered along with the other BoF proposals when the IESG and IAB meet to consider the proposals for the Montreal IETF on June 11.

Thanks
Suresh

> On Jun 1, 2019, at 11:53 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Area Directors,
> 
> Over a week ago, I sent you a proposal for a virtual BOF [1].  Would it be possibel to get some feedback from you?
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> 
> 1. Please see https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/
> 
> -- 
> Eligibility-discuss mailing list
> Eligibility-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eligibility-discuss