Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

["Andrew G. Malis" <[e-mail]>]

As always, anyone that wants to have a meeting not covered by the Note Well
can use a private meeting room or other space (such as a restaurant) not
being provided by the IETF. IMHO, any meeting or discussion in a space
being provided by the IETF, such as the IETF lounge or a session room, is
covered by the Note Well.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> It seems clear to me that if you don't meet in a meeting that is
> officially part of the IETF, then you aren't under the note well.   So if
> you meet Phillip in the airport, no Note Well.   On the other hand,
> informal sessions on Friday can be covered by the Note Well if they are
> announced as such, to as great an extent as any other meeting can.   IANAL,
> of course, but this seems straightforward.
>
> I've found Hackathons to be valuable, and the fact that they precede the
> IETF is very good.   I agree with you that earlier "informal" discussions
> are more important than later ones.   Having those covered under the note
> well when desired would also be good—I don't think that a conversation in
> the hallway is covered under the note well.   Like you I would be curious
> to know if the IETF lawyer has an opinion on this.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 17/05/2018 00:29, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>>
>> > I am probably alone in thinking that the Hackathon is suplimentary to
>> > the main purpose of the meeting,
>>
>> True, but very valuable if we're serious about "running code".
>>
>> > and thus don't much care when they are
>>
>> I do. If the hackathon is held before the relevant WG session, the
>> WG can get hot feedback on whether the latest spec is actually
>> implementable and whether any interop problems point to ambiguous
>> text. Also, minor fixes can be made and tested in odd moments
>> later in the week.
>>
>> > held, but perhaps we could move them to the Friday/Saturday after the
>> > standards sessions so people fatigued for the WG sessions. Those slots
>> > could then double as a sort of forml-informal time for extended WG
>> > discussions.
>>
>> Why do we assume informal sessions are more valuable at the end of
>> the week? I've often found it annoying to have a Monday WG session,
>> because of the need for informal discussions *before* the meeting
>> itself.
>>
>> On 17/05/2018 07:04, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>> .....> It is quite important to continue the official meeting through
>> Friday
>> > however because if I am going to have discussions, I want them to be
>> under
>> > Note Well.
>>
>> I would like legal advice about that. What do we have to do to
>> be sure whether an informal, unscheduled meeting is part of the
>> IETF meeting or not?
>>
>> I'm fairly sure that if I bump into Phill in the departure lounge
>> at Bangkok airport, it's not the IETF. But if I meet with him and
>> a few other participants in the venue at 11 a.m. on the Friday?
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8179#section-1 doesn't really
>> seem to answer this:
>> "Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list, or other
>>  function, or that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF
>>  activity, group, or function, are not Contributions in the context
>>  of this document."
>> Is an informal, unscheduled discussion on Friday morning "an IETF
>> activity, group, or function"?
>>
>>     Brian
>>
>>
>