Re: Virtual BOFs

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 10/01/2016 03:54, John C Klensin wrote:
...
> Probably an excellent idea, especially since I can only see four
> possible outcomes from any given attempt:
> 
> (1) "We know enough now, form the WG".  In that case, we save
> calendar and meeting time and are able to get on with the work
> sooner.
> 
> (2) "This is conclusively a bad idea or not ready for IETF work"
> or "it is now clear that no one other than the author cares".
> As with the above, saves time and allows us to get on with our
> lives.
> 
> (3) "Don't know enough, need either another virtual meeting or
> an in-person BOF".   In that case, we haven't really lost
> anything and probably have more information than we would have
> had from mailing list discussion alone.
> 
> (4) "Couldn't make a determination, due eitherto lack of
> attendance by key people or some technical issue.".   As with
> (3), little has been lost and we can always hold a physical BOF
> under traditional rules if needed.

Speaking from the time-zone-challenged corner, I see a high risk
of hitting (4) rather frequently. Of course you can argue that
there is also a high risk of hitting (4) with face2face BOFs at
unpopular destinations.

That said, it does seem worth a try.

   Brian

> Each of those seems to me to be a win, although in different
> ways.  Equally useful, if we encouraged people to hold these
> virtual sessions well before the request cut-off date for
> in-meeting BOFs, those who requested them will be able to submit
> normal request if needed, will have more information, and IETF
> work will be better spread out between meetings.
> 
> best,
>     john
> 
>