ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Openness for IETF-sponsored events

2008-10-21 07:36:35
Ted,

I was at the workshop representing the IAB, and I fully agree. While
it was held in a good-sized auditorium, given the obvious interest in
the topic, if everyone who wanted to attend or get on the agenda
could, we would have needed a venue two or three times the size, more
administrative support, and probably have needed to extend the
workshop over at least two days. Given the size of the venue and the
time available, I thought the way the workshop was conducted was
extremely reasonable and fair.

Cheers,
Andy

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ted Hardie <hardie(_at_)qualcomm(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
Howdy,
       There has been a lot of traffic in the past few days on
the question of whether the recent p2pi workshop was or was not
"open".  Having sent a paper in to that workshop and participated
in an apps-area workshop, I'd like to weigh in on the question with
a fairly blunt reply:  not fully.  Whenever participation is gated
by a committee, it is not fully open.  In the p2pi case, Jon and Cullen
acted as the gates; they swung wide (thanks, guys!), but you
had to either submit a position paper and have it approved by
them or get a waiver from them.  To quote from their mail of
May 2nd:

We've had a number of inquiries from people interested in the workshop
who are reluctant to submit a paper because they have no particular
agenda to push in this space. We'd like to stress that position papers
can shed light on any aspect of the problem or solution space, and we'd
encourage anyone interested in making a technical contribution to
ongoing work in this space at the IETF to submit a paper even if it
serves only to further explain the problem, the requirements, or even
the non-requirements associated with this work.

That much said, if it is not appropriate for you to submit a position
paper, please contact Cullen and Jon by May 9th to request a waiver. You
can reach us at: jon(_dot_)peterson(_at_)neustar(_dot_)biz, 
fluffy(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com

       That doesn't really matter, though.  What matters is that
workshops like this are inputs into an open process (in this case, the BoF, in
the APPs workshop a list of potential work items).  Anyone could
participate in the BoF or on the mailing list, and that is where we
have to make sure that the full openness remains.  The discussion
now of the scope of the work in this proposed working group is a
critical part of that openness, as it is *the* time early in the process
when the IETF community as a whole considers a proposed
work plan and commits to it.  ALTO is getting very good feedback,
and I hope that its Area Directors (and any potential chairs) are
listening to it; it's heartening to see the level of interest here when
so many WGs are chartered or re-chartered with no comments at all.

       I hope we can stop focusing on the openness of the workshop
as a primary topic in this conversation, and focus on keeping the
proposed working group open to input at this pivotal moment.  Having
hummed for the creation of the WG at the BoF, I obviously support the
creation of a WG now.  But I'm much, much happier getting the input
on charter details dealt with now, as a good discussion now can avoid
lots of later stress on the working group machinery.

                               regards,
                                       Ted Hardie

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>