Re: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

>One of the key things we need to think about is suitable people to
chair the BoF. I believe Rich has already expressed an interest and so
we would need to find A.N.Other...

Yes, I have expressed interest in being a BoF co-chair, and I've had
some prior experience that might be helpful here. But I don't think we
should not be campaigning for co-chairs on IETF mailing lists -- in
fact, I don't think there should be any IETF position campaigning at
all.

That's why I sent a *private* email to Bob Briscoe (as the most active
BoF organizer) and to Lars Eggert (as one of the responsible ADs per
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Transport). The other
responsible AD is Jari Arkko.

I would recommend that other folks interested in a potential BoF
co-chair role should also communicate privately to Lars and Jari --
although right now they are probably more focused on whether this should
be an approved BoF for Hiroshima than whom they should pick for
co-chairs. Certainly the deeper pool of candidates they have to choose
from, the better for this group.

In any case, I'll spend more time working on <Re-ECN or whatever>
regardless of my personal role in this group.

Here is some helpful advice from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5434#section-7.1:

   BOF organizers often assume that they will be chairing a BOF (and the
   eventual WG).  Neither assumption is always true.  ADs need to ensure
   that a BOF runs smoothly and is productive.  For some topics, it is a
   given that the BOF will be contentious.  In such cases, ADs may want
   to have a more experienced person chairing or co-chairing the BOF.
   Also, those interested in organizing the BOF often are the most
   interested in driving a particular technology (and may have strongly
   held views about what direction an effort should take).  Working
   Groups are often more effective when passionately involved parties
   are allowed to focus on the technical work, rather than on managing
   the WG itself.  Thus, do not be surprised (or offended!) if the AD
   wants to pick one or more co-chairs for either the BOF or a follow-on
   WG.

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: toby.moncaster@bt.com [mailto:toby.moncaster@bt.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 6:44 AM
To: Woundy, Richard; lars.eggert@nokia.com; rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk
Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF

Just in case people are interested, it looks as though the IESG will
make their decisions on which BoFs to accept next Friday (25th).

By that time it would be nice to have started some of the preliminary
work that will need to be done if we do get approval... One of the key
things we need to think about is suitable people to chair the BoF. I
believe Rich has already expressed an interest and so we would need to
find A.N.Other...

Toby

> -----Original Message-----
> From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Woundy, Richard
> Sent: 10 September 2009 19:06
> To: lars.eggert@nokia.com; Briscoe,RJ,Bob,XVR9 BRISCORJ R
> Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF
> 
> I think I found my own answer (yes, officially), per
> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart#Transport.
> 
> -- Rich
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:re-ecn-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Woundy, Richard
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:33 AM
> To: lars.eggert@nokia.com; rbriscoe@jungle.bt.co.uk
> Cc: re-ecn@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [re-ECN] BoF Proposal for wider IETF
> 
> >you need to have submitted a BOF proposal by the deadline. See
> RFC5434,
> Section 2, Step 5.
> 
> Did we make the deadline?
> 
> -- Rich
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn
> _______________________________________________
> re-ECN mailing list
> re-ECN@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/re-ecn