--On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:32 +0200 Yoav Nir
<ynir(_at_)checkpoint(_dot_)com> wrote:
We can have as high a barrier as necessary to ensure there are
no more than, say, 12 posters.
Yes, but that is another aspect of why I don't want to go down
this path. As soon as you say "high barrier", you imply some
sort of review process. That takes up someone's time. Given
our requirements about openness, there is considerable potential
for our having to create a process for appointing the reviewers
and/or a requirement for an appeals procedure for anyone who
thinks they have been put at a disadvantage by having a poster
turned down, etc.
That is very different from academic conferences in which review
norms are already in place and the culture doesn't permit making
claims based on being put at a disadvantage for standardization
because a contribution was turned down. As Fred pointed out in
a different way, we need to remember that the IETF has become
primarily an SDO and that, as an open SDO, we have procedural
and openness requirements that don't apply to various sorts of
conferences.
Academic conferences also tend to be a lot more leisurely than
IETF meetings -- people can wander through poster sessions with
having a negative effect on more important schedules.
Alternate suggestion that might accomplish part of the goal:
convince an AD or two that there would be benefit in conducting
micro-BOFs (or, if you prefer, a cross between a BOF and
speed-dating). The entry requirement would be an I-D posted
well in advance and a fairly normal BOF proposal but with
extremely short, presentation-only, or presentation and quick
questions, with maybe six to 10 presentations based on a poster
or handful of slides.
So...
ADs/IESG get BOF proposals. Those that are clearly ready get
BOFs as usual. Of those that are not but that would seem to
benefit from presentation time, ADs could allocate micro-BOF
slots either in area meetings or in a normal slot divided among
many of these. Note that we are already doing presentations
like that in some area meetings -- this is not a radical
suggestion nor one that requires major logistical changes.
No formal requirement for minutes, no status for any decisions.
People who discover that they want to have further discussions
could arrange to meet informally --in the halls, at breaks, even
at the bar.
But note that any proposal for such a session starts with a
posted I-D that people can look at in advance if they are
interested. If the real goal is to avoid the need to post an
I-D, I just don't see that working or the "poster" time being
well-spent.
john
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf