Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 06 August 2010 12:44 UTC
Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABFEF3A696D for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.692
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.692 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_05=-1.11, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RRKu6ZjSTisF for <ietf@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5896C3A6951 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so5367305qwe.31 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=U+hgEpSfyItAuX9buJhFPBDPuokDiMSh+FTOsuG1AjA=; b=EKuTMK35N1L/LJjcjXqIEnBj1Af0PRJ4nx7A6k5hWi/fUyoOBdM+CZS88izM/2IjhR WKDjAIyAZ9/LchQGGUbuMjiJVNrHI/5mqHj/i7duMbc8lQUWJcScw7SIGLLqEDlGDAdm UlPgUEPYrncztRriAtrr9y+ZugxvAxbtrx404=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=ZSD54sKqXxFJj6Xmdi6if4MOTsZ55fnDyDRIw+y8FQBcAuzhU4y5r1k3wwzAUJI3z4 51gMAQ3jxEEtt7jACMnfBIfeM+u6MSArE/VohDoVTsG5F9QpUuJVVzzRntZpn19R7gMi kWblxRuqT0lVQVlhfnuICxpZTzmyCFd1x4ZFk=
Received: by 10.229.253.136 with SMTP id na8mr4542474qcb.227.1281098714241; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bxb-rdroms-8715.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t25sm1704285qcs.18.2010.08.06.05.45.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2604C29-093C-4D80-BCEA-F786A48008C6@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:45:10 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26847737-6AC9-4A9E-952B-516B5280F66F@gmail.com>
References: <C2604C29-093C-4D80-BCEA-F786A48008C6@cisco.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 12:44:44 -0000
One of the contributors, in my opinion, to the evolution of an "ad hoc meeting in a bar" to "Bar Bof" as Fred defines it has been a series of small actions, intended to facilitate the organization ad hoc meetings, that have had the unintended consequence of increasing the apparent close relationship between a Bar BoF, an IETF meeting and the WG formation process: Specifically: * AD attendance at Bar Bofs Intention (at least speaking for myself): early awareness Unintended consequence: formal invitations and expected attendance * scheduling unused meeting rooms during IETF meetings, usually over lunch or after Intention: avoid the overhead of finding a non-conficting space for a meeting Unintended consequence: Extra admin overhead for IETF secretariat; Bar BoFs look more like formally scheduled IETF events * conversation about Bar BoF scheduling on IETF mailing lists Intention: Unintended consequence: Bar BoFs are widely advertised and many of attendees are in listen-only mode * posting of Bar Bof logistics on an IETF wiki Intention: central location for Bar BoF logistics Unintended consequence: Bar BoFs look more like formally scheduled IETF events I will confess to describing a problem here without suggesting an associated solution. It's hard to support banning any one of these actions taken individually. Taken together, they seem to move us away from ad hoc meetings to an unplanned additional layer of formalism in our process. - Ralph On Jul 29, 2010, at 4:00 PM 7/29/10, Fred Baker wrote: > [...] > Let me explain what a Bar BOF is, and what it is not. Our formal BOFs are scheduled with an AD, and are generally for formalizing a charter. The assumption is that a prior ad hoc process, usually on a mailing list or via telephone or conferencing systems has happened, and a work item has matured to the point that we have interested people, proto-specifications or at least problem statements, and so on. > > The initiation point of that is often-but-not-always a handful of people talking over a meal or in a bar on a topic, often having convened mere moments before. Sketches might be drawn on napkins, and people that are hungry or thirsty have a waiter/waitress at hand to deal with that. A Bar BOF, as such small gatherings are called, is *not* a full-blown meeting of perhaps hundreds of people placed at a mealtime but in a place that prevents them from eating. It does not require powerpoint, and is not a catered event. It is not ten minutes stolen from some other subject. Key concept: we respect each other and each other's time, and so we meet in a place that has food and drink, and we have an intimate conversation among people who will be interested to carry on some work item. > > [...] >
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Carsten Bormann
- Ad Hoc BOFs Fred Baker
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Dave CROCKER
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Melinda Shore
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Scott Brim
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Fred Baker
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Jelte Jansen
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Jari Arkko
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Patrik Fältström
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Melinda Shore
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Paul Hoffman
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Melinda Shore
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Dave CROCKER
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Donald Eastlake
- RE: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Marshall Eubanks
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Spencer Dawkins
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Scott W Brim
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Scott W Brim
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs John C Klensin
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Melinda Shore
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Scott Brim
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Michael Richardson
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Paul Hoffman
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Michael Richardson
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Joel Jaeggli
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Ralph Droms
- One ad hoc experience ... was Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Edward Lewis
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: Ad Hoc BOFs Yoav Nir