[rgchairs] Re: Long BoFs (was Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT)

Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com> Wed, 20 July 2005 23:14 UTC

Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvNlp-0000Sn-8G; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:14:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DvNlo-0000RJ-2b for rgchairs@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:14:32 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA12960 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:14:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mtagate1.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.134]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DvOFi-0004EJ-N3 for rgchairs@irtf.org; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:45:27 -0400
Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate1.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j6KNELJP218894 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2005 23:14:21 GMT
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id j6KNELx0222904 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:14:21 +0100
Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j6KNELHK001603 for <rgchairs@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:14:21 +0100
Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j6KNEKxa001596; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:14:20 +0100
Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-130-96.de.ibm.com [9.145.130.96]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA60418; Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:14:19 +0200
Message-ID: <42DEDAC9.2060208@zurich.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:14:17 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Organization: IBM
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rohan Mahy <rohan@ekabal.com>
References: <E1Ds6Ih-000461-Sk@newodin.ietf.org> <28691ceb6e3bab25470b527e8b450efe@telio.no> <20050714151118.GB18322@1-4-5.net> <4b42969153c704fc78e507c457d1aab6@ekabal.com>
In-Reply-To: <4b42969153c704fc78e507c457d1aab6@ekabal.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Working Group Chairs <wgchairs@ietf.org>, rgchairs@irtf.org, bofchairs@ietf.org
Subject: [rgchairs] Re: Long BoFs (was Re: 63rd IETF Agenda - DRAFT)
X-BeenThere: rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF research group chairs list <rgchairs.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/rgchairs>
List-Post: <mailto:rgchairs@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs>, <mailto:rgchairs-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: rgchairs-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Rohan Mahy wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I understand that voipeer was approved and the ADs agreed on 2.5 hours. 
>  My personal impression is that if a BoF requires more than 1 hour, 
> either the scope is too large or there has not been enough mailing list 
> or ad-hoc discussion yet.
> 
> I think the scheduling problem would be easier if we restrict BoFs to 1 
> hour in the future.  Active WGs should take precedence and this is one 
> way to do that.

I'm not sure I'd want a rigid rule for BOFs. If a BOF is very close to being
a WG (charter out for review but not yet approved, for example) it seems
reasonable to give it a longer slot. But certainly if it's really exploratory,
it should be shorter.

    Brian

> 
> Thanks again Marcia for making the best of an impossible situation.
> 
> thanks,
> -rohan
> 
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 8:11, David Meyer wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:33:00PM +0200, Hisham Khartabil wrote:
>>
>>> There is a conflict in the agenda on Thursday Afternoon Session I. A
>>> sizeable portion on the VoIP community attend SIMPLE WG meeting and
>>> will be interested in attending VOIPEER BOF.
>>>
>>> It would be great that when moving the slot, to make sure that no other
>>> conflicts occur with sip, sipping, enum, mmusic, ecrit, xcon, behave
>>> and avt working groups. It might be much easier to move voipeer since
>>> its a bof and I dont think it requires a 2.5 hour slot.
>>
>>
>>     First, I realize the very difficult scheduling problem
>>     that the secretariat is facing. I wanted, however, to
>>     address the time requirements for the BOF. When I was
>>     discussing this with the ADs, we settled on this length
>>     for the BOF due to the overwhelming number of folks who
>>     expressed interest in participating (and their various
>>     scheduling constraints). In any event, I would rather
>>     leave the 2.5 hour length as it is, or we won't be able
>>     to have time for everyone who has expressed interest to
>>     participate, and to have a reasonable amount of time for
>>     discussion.
>>
>>     Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Rgchairs mailing list
Rgchairs@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rgchairs