IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: virtual-only wgs?

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 18 May 2019 22:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 2026212010F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2019 15:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 tN_ank-CUJOf for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 May 2019 15:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A4DD1200F3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 May 2019 15:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C52D3826B; Sat, 18 May 2019 18:45:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 78921CA3; Sat, 18 May 2019 18:46:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76253C91; Sat, 18 May 2019 18:46:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: virtual-only wgs?
In-Reply-To: <B75BB59A-80EE-46BB-A921-4A2D87591AAF@gmail.com>
References: <F24B0AF4-AA00-461E-BD3D-9E0AB9FA4261@gmail.com> <B75BB59A-80EE-46BB-A921-4A2D87591AAF@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 18:46:25 -0400
Message-ID: <28447.1558219585@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/urV1VKdKK-XbDBupvy-nlfqBSGM>
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: Sat, 18 May 2019 22:46:28 -0000

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> Can anyone tell me whether our standards process allows for
    >> virtual-only working groups? In other words, could a working group
    >> choose to stop meeting at IETF venues and only convene online?

    > As many folks have said, this is possible and has been done.
    > However, as a follow-on question, could there be a working forming BOF that is virtual?

I think that this has happened, but I don't have an existence proof.

I know that WGs have been formed without in-person BOFs, and I suspect it
resulted from a few email conversations, and some well written charters.
Whether there were informal phone calls or unofficial virtual interim
meetings, I don't know.

Our rules say you don't have to have a BOF.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email