Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

["Eliot Lear (elear)" <[e-mail]>]

I wish email had a “like” button. Good call. 

Eliot

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 6:45 AM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On today's BOF approval call, the IESG and IAB had an in-depth discussion of the i18nRP BOF proposal. One of the topics that was most discussed is a concern that the BOF does not have a clear path to success, largely because the proposal has very little discussion of proposed potential outcomes. While we do not expect the proponents to presuppose an outcome, we believe that achieving a positive outcome requires one or more specific proposals to serve as a basis for the conversation.
> 
> At the same time, the volume of traffic on the IETF mailing list on this topic does seem to demonstrate that there is interest in discussing topics related to internationalization. The ART area directors have therefore provisionally approved the BOF, subject to the proponents and/or any other interested parties providing concrete proposals as a basis for discussion.
> 
> Concretely, this means that the secretariat has been requested to schedule a one-hour slot for the Montreal meeting for the proposed BOF. If no concrete proposals for procedural approaches to address the issues described by the BOF proponents are available by Wednesday, June 13th, the secretariat will be requested to remove the BOF from the schedule.
> 
> Although it did not come up during the call, I personally wish to point out that open-ended brainstorming sessions without concrete proposals are typically handled as unofficial side-meetings (either in person or virtually). If the BOF proponents wish to maintain the open-ended brainstorm session described in the current proposal, the side meeting scheduling mechanism remains available; and I would be happy to help out should any difficulties occur in using that mechanism.
> 
> Please send proposals and any other follow-up messages to [e-mail]
> 
> /a
>