Re: Agenda experiment for IETF 103 in November in Bangkok

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

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