At 01:38 17-08-2011, John C Klensin wrote:
The problem is that RFCs are forever. RFCs subjected to IETF
Last Call and published in the IETF Stream --especially ones
that advise on IETF processes-- are also official, at least in
the sense of representing some level of community consensus and
IESG approval. Publishing this document in the RFC Series runs
a considerable risk of causing (or at least reinforcing) exactly
the situation the it argues against -- creating a permanent
structure of meetings for which "informal" is as much of a
misnomer as "bar BOF" has become.
What's problematic is saying that the document represents IETF
Consensus as it is going to misinterpreted and end up encouraging an
IETF trilogy. It wouldn't be the authors' fault; it's more about no
longer having an appropriate path for publishing well-written
documents such as draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof.
Let me give two examples of the problem with the understanding
that there are more:
* If we have an official-looking, cast-in-RFC-stone,
discussion of what "success" means for an informal
meeting, it means that the IETF has established success
criteria for a meeting type that we simultaneously claim
is not part of the WG-formation or consensus processes.
One really can't have it both ways and, in that sense,
the document reinforces the "first you need a mailing
list, then a Bar-BOF (sic) or two, then a "real" BOF (or
two), ..." trend.
This is where the FYI would have been useful. The document discusses
about an IETF matter, Bar BoFs without drinks [sic]. Publishing it
in another stream would be a "political" decision. Explaining how to
hold informal meetings formalizes such events. With the "Note Well"
(Section 6), the meeting is far from an informal one.
I suggest removing Section 6 as that topic is BCP material.
(2) Just say "no". Once upon a time, we had a relatively strict
rule against any IETF-related open (or semi-open, or publicly
announced) meetings in the IETF venue unless those meetings
were either on the agenda or a formal IETF group. That was in
the time when Bar-BoFs (and Bar-Design-Teams, and
Bar-other-things) were held in Bars, with Bar-sized groups, and
those were not considered meetings of any type. We could do
that again -- forcing pre-charter meetings into other venues
would at least reinforce the message that they weren't WG
meetings of unchartered WGs.
Yes.
(4) Make it clear that any claims of consensus arising from an
informal meeting would not only be ignored, but would cause BOF
or WG proposals from the leadership of that information meeting
to be discarded on the grounds that the people were clueless and
incapable of working within the IETF. Taking these "unofficial
BOF" discussions seriously merely reinforces their misuse.
Yes.
At 15:40 15-08-2011, Spencer Dawkins wrote:
Section 3 contains a sad tail of woe about an area director being
trapped in a hotel for a few days during IETF 77, but I'm thinking
area directors are going to be trapped in hotels for a few days
during IETF weeks, whether there are side meetings scheduled during
meals or not.
Area Directors could find some peace by pushing these meetings
outside confined IETF space.
you might say that, so everyone has realistic expectations; (2) "if
you schedule a side meeting during a meal break, everyone there will
be missing a meal unless you go to a restaurant like we told you",
and (3) "if you schedule a side meeting that looks like a BOF during
a meal break, you won't fit into most restaurants, so have a small
side meeting and go to a restaurant like we told you" :-)
Yes.
Fred Baker once raised a concern about "a lack of regard for people's
health and time". He suggested having a web page entitled "Poorly
Planned Meetings" for them. Dave Crocker pointed out that even with
the excellent title suggested, the web page will move these
activities down the slippery slope of formality.
Melinda Shore commented on an extreme example, the clouds thing,
where they wanted a working group before they even had anything to
work on. Jelte Jansen mentioned that if you make it more official,
you'll only extend the process, which will result in another level of
meetings, and even fuller schedules. Paul Hoffman mentioned that
"the number of scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs that had fleshed-out ideas
but no drafts was distressing". Peter Saint-Andre pointed out that
"the number of WG sessions (which are ostensibly scheduled for the
purpose of "working") in which folks have not read the drafts or
otherwise prepared themselves to actively contribute is also
distressingly high".
Yoav Nir mentioned "formalizing that a bunch of people throwing ideas
around (the "true" bar BoF) is not a good thing". Joel Halpern
mentioned a suggestion that was made to him: part of the problem is
that some folks can not figure out how to socialize their ideas.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf