RE: Side Meetings at IETF 103

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 04 October 2018 18:55 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C82127332 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 mQBRCBsrzdYx for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:55:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (mta6.iomartmail.com [62.128.193.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3AA9126BED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:55:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (vs2.iomartmail.com [10.12.10.123]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w94It6JH004114 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:55:06 +0100
Received: from vs2.iomartmail.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2DDD22044 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:55:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from asmtp1.iomartmail.com (unknown [10.12.10.248]) by vs2.iomartmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D40422042 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:55:06 +0100 (BST)
Received: from 950129200 (4.43.114.87.dyn.plus.net [87.114.43.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp1.iomartmail.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w94It5b2015621 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:55:05 +0100
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <153866809060.4465.16083821123522297999.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <AC3FAB34-9923-40E8-B709-77AB253F268C@bangj.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC3FAB34-9923-40E8-B709-77AB253F268C@bangj.com>
Subject: RE: Side Meetings at IETF 103
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 19:55:01 +0100
Message-ID: <0d1401d45c13$c1ea9fa0$45bfdee0$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJHwuaQxrJ+yuMSlSATLY6woVdhOwIi0lZ0pBd+AuA=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-Originating-IP: 87.114.43.4
X-Thinkmail-Auth: adrian@olddog.co.uk
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.0.1013-24136.002
X-TM-AS-Result: No--20.790-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--20.790-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-Version: IMSVA-9.0.0.1623-8.2.1013-24136.002
X-TMASE-Result: 10--20.790200-10.000000
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: +f/wAVSGjujxIbpQ8BhdbMf52VD5rJyZh8Ytn75ClDPb6Y+fnTZUL93o JSW/mo06/kRLYDVAILTV55op6HGBQqLXDQ9hm+oUa8NP7ALumoWJmuvUjI4ina+WgCcaviqGvfQ HJZHb5bm9eMOF4FZwRV3KnnBmHvI5ZyOqH+Hnn7nmAId+2bAQwgvxMaV6x4s87x2zVUgFuaDJFI SlnPoMD91MCYJynNUubbYbEsDgp8RKpIM6MfwkGvX3U1DOEZGv+fpRa1poQloM74Nf6tTB9kFYU JLQupgqdxdsATNQrMhTAedSnXjCTmuCdtCAow1/ngIgpj8eDcC063Wh9WVqgnXA+T8YcZkDz6Pt 0NB/3/5Ka35Igffp/90H8LFZNFG7JQhrLH5KSJ0=
X-TMASE-SNAP-Result: 1.821001.0001-0-1-12:0,22:0,33:0,34:0-0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6t2RuCmH_IBLyelq2QxMwxxwb6Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 18:55:12 -0000

I assume that this has been discussed by the IESG and is a conscious decision.

For some time, the IETF has struggled with demarcation of those things that have
IETF approval and those that don't.

A challenge with side meetings was that they tended to get represented as though
they were approved IETF meetings. There used to be a desire to clearly separate
"approved BoFs" from "ad hoc side meetings", yet there was a strong urge to
encourage and facilitate side meetings.

This was reconciled by allowing rooms to be booked for side meetings, but not
publicising or recording the bookings on any publically visible web site.

This is in keeping with the policy linked to below, but a calendar might be an
issue unless it is taken down after the meeting so that record of the side
meetings goes away.

It might also help for the IESG to re-clarify the applicability of the IPR
policy to side meetings and distinguish them (if necessary) from working group
design team meetings.

Thanks,
Adrian

> On Oct 4, 2018, at 8:48 AM, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat@ietf.org>
wrote:
>
> As communicated back in May (https://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/ietf/current/msg107813.html), the IESG is running an agenda
> experiment on Friday of the IETF 103 meeting week.
>
> Monday through Thursday, we will have two rooms available for attendees to
> reserve for side meetings, as usual. On Friday, because there will be no
working
> group meetings, we will have eight rooms available for side meetings.
Projectors
> will be provided in all of the meeting rooms. Please note that all side
meetings
> must conclude by 13:30.
>
> We realize that keeping track of all of these side meetings may prove
> challenging, so we are currently looking into options for a side meeting
calendar.
> We hope to have more information soon. In the meantime:
>
> - Meeting wiki: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/ietf103
> - To reserve a side meeting room:
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/103sidemeetings
> - IETF Meeting Room Policy: https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/meeting-
> rooms-policy/