From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian(_dot_)e(_dot_)carpenter(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
On 2007-05-26 05:35, Bernard Aboba wrote:
...
In my experience, part of the issue is lack of feedback on what the next
steps are.
Pragmatically, I suggest helping to improve draft-narten-successful-bof
Although the BOF process is still a relatively dark corner of the IETF, the
ambient lighting has been increasing for a while. I've seen three changes in
the past couple of years that are worth mentioning:
- As Brian points out, Thomas Narten's draft-narten-successful-bof is a lot
more guidance than the community has had previously on "how to bring new
work into the IETF", and this draft also became the basis of a
Sunday-afternoon tutorial offered at the last two IETFs.
- As recently as last year, the IAB and IESG were discussing BOFs and BOF
coverage on Monday morning of each IETF meeting week. This has switched to a
pre-IETF telechat on the BOFs that have been requested, a couple of months
prior to the IETF, allowing better preparation and better evaluation now.
- One point of controversy, probably 18 months ago, was whether to announce
UNSUCCESSFUL BOF requests. Current practice is to make all BOF requests
visible while they are under consideration, at
http://www3.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki. As Bernard points out, feedback on
next steps could be improved, but this is much more visible to the community
than it's been in the last 10 years (I don't go back further than that).
My understanding was that draft-narten-successful-bof was a first step to
describe what the current practice was, before making changes to the
process, and anyone who cares about this topic should be familiar with this
draft before making suggestions.
I should also remember to thank Leslie and Brian, and the IAB and IESG
members who made these changes.
Spencer
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf