Re: [mpowr] WG Formation

actually I see at least 3 different types of BOF being run in the IETF:

- Proposals, often externally initiated, for IETF activities. There, 
evidence of an active, open community/discussion is the first thing we ask 
for.

- "This is a problem" BOFs. Examples are various SPAM BOFs, the Anycast 
BOFs  and so on - things where we (members of the community, some set of WG 
chairs, IESG members.....) recognize that there's a problem, but it doesn't 
seem like WG material, and it doesn't belong to any WG's scope.
At the upcoming IETF, it remains to be seen whether MXCOMP will be such a 
BOF or the initation of a WG activity. Here, making a separate mailing list 
may be a result of the decision to have a BOF, rather than a precondition - 
and sometimes a mailing list is even inappropriate.

- "Haven't finished the paperwork" BOFs - things that are obviously going 
to be a WG, but for some reason the charter hasn't been approved (such as 
haven't got WG chairs, can't agree on a name, didn't get the review 
messages sent in time....). Examples were L2VPN and L3VPN at the time of 
the split.

One thing I really liked about draft-iesg-hardie-outline was the discussion 
of the various types of WGs. BOFs, too, don't come in "one size fits all".

When we have a reason to have a meeting at the IETF that doesn't fit the WG 
category, we usually call it a BOF.
That means - some variety is to be expected, and some judgment needs to be 
exercised.
I hope that works, most of the time......

                                Harald

_______________________________________________
mpowr mailing list
mpowr@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpowr