Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
On Jul 31, 2010, at 2:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: At 9:32 AM -0800 7/30/10, Melinda Shore wrote: The implication that there needs to be a session, with a room and slides and humans sitting in chairs, kind of suggests that people who want to participate in the IETF have to attend meetings. participate is too strong a word. Scheduled-but-ad-hoc BoFs now have the same unfortunate properties of many WGs, namely that 80+% of the people there are only there to listen, not help. Double bingo. 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. Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. So yes, they do make it seem like the working group is not interested, but lots of times, they're not even on the mailing list, So it's hard to tell which of the people in the room are actually the working group, and I don't think we have a good definition of who belongs or doesn't belong to the working group. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
Yoav Nir wrote: Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. That's a really good point, actually. I've also made a point in the past of attending at least one session completely unrelated to what I'm working on, in hopes of learning something or getting new ideas or new associations or something. But still, it seems to me that there are two somewhat but not quite orthogonal questions here: 1) whether or not the increasing formalization of the bar BOF reflects an increased expectation of attendance in order to participate/advance work in the IETF, and 2) what a working group meeting is. Melinda ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: Yoav Nir wrote: Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. That's a really good point, actually. I've also made a point in the past of attending at least one session completely unrelated to what I'm working on, in hopes of learning something or getting new ideas or new associations or something. But still, it seems to me that there are two somewhat but not quite orthogonal questions here: 1) whether or not the increasing formalization of the bar BOF reflects an increased expectation of attendance in order to participate/advance work in the IETF, and 2) what a working group meeting is. I'll pass on answering #2, but as for #1, I think the bar BoF institution is mis-used as a working group of last resort. If I can't present my idea at a regular working group (because of time constraints or because it doesn't fit the charter of any current WG), and I can't present it at the area gathering (for lack of space), adding a bar BoF to the wiki seems to be the only way. In the end we don't get a lot of discussion - merely a presentation + QA session. And still the right people are often not there. So formalizing a bunch of presentations is a good thing, although I think it needs to be done differently. Formalizing a bunch of people throwing ideas around (the true bar BoF) is not a good thing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
In hallway discussion about this, it was suggested to me that part of the problem is that some folks can not figure out how to socialize their ideas. If ideas are really preliminary, sitting down with 4-6 other folks who are skilled and informed on the particular topic to discuss the idea, and try to firm it up makes good sense. The IETF is a very good place to do that. That is what the traditional Bar BoF was for. If the idea is that unformed, it is probably not a good idea to invite 70 of your unknown compatriots to come discuss it with you. Conversely, if the idea is better formed, write an I-D. Then either create a mailing list, or ask the leadership for help creating a mailing list. Ask the relevant chairs to pass on an email about the email lsit. Have discussion on the email list. This is the known recipe for getting to a successful BoF. It works. Conversely, having a large number of informal, large BarBoFs to try to drum up interest in a topic is not good for the community. Folks need time to talk to eahc other individually about many topics. Folks should be allowed time to eat sane meals and get some sleep. We can not ban all such meetings. But we need to remind people that culturally, this is the way that the IETF has found to be effective. This leads to two suggestions: 1) If there is no I-D and no mailing list, then no, you can not have a room suitable for 50+ people. 2) When requests come in for actual BoFs, and the request includes supporting indications of interest, and claim that a BarBof indicates interest should be ignored by the leadership. Yours, Joel Yoav Nir wrote: On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: Yoav Nir wrote: Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. That's a really good point, actually. I've also made a point in the past of attending at least one session completely unrelated to what I'm working on, in hopes of learning something or getting new ideas or new associations or something. But still, it seems to me that there are two somewhat but not quite orthogonal questions here: 1) whether or not the increasing formalization of the bar BOF reflects an increased expectation of attendance in order to participate/advance work in the IETF, and 2) what a working group meeting is. I'll pass on answering #2, but as for #1, I think the bar BoF institution is mis-used as a working group of last resort. If I can't present my idea at a regular working group (because of time constraints or because it doesn't fit the charter of any current WG), and I can't present it at the area gathering (for lack of space), adding a bar BoF to the wiki seems to be the only way. In the end we don't get a lot of discussion - merely a presentation + QA session. And still the right people are often not there. So formalizing a bunch of presentations is a good thing, although I think it needs to be done differently. Formalizing a bunch of people throwing ideas around (the true bar BoF) is not a good thing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
On 7/31/2010 1:00 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: or perhaps many drafts are written in such a way that folks can't easily grok the problem and its proposed solution. Regarding the latter, one of the WGs I advise held a small tutorial session in a side room on Friday morning and that turned out to be quite useful because it forced some of the key contributors (in this case the chairs) to clearly explain the core concepts behind the protocol under development within the WG, and I think that effort will pay off in the form of a much clearer and more readable specification. Kudos. There has long been discomfort about working group meetings that are primarily tutorial. Given the very short time there is for wg meetings, it really is essential that they be devoted to resolving specific questions through face to face debate. That's really all there is time for. That said, careful summary/tutorial can often be quite helpful. And you point the perhaps-not-obvious benefit that it solidifies the presentation abilities of the principles, rather than only providing basic exposure for new folk. So I find myself reacting to your note by thinking that perhaps we should distinguish these activities and schedule them separately, with clear labeling. Only some groups will need tutorials. Only some folk will need/want to attend them. If a group needs /only/ tutorial, we might want to take a moment and wonder how that can be. I could, for example, imagine a message of brief tutorials filling some of Sunday... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Ad Hoc BOFs
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.comwrote: ... 1) If there is no I-D and no mailing list, then no, you can not have a room suitable for 50+ people. ... +10**10 If there is no ID and no mailing list at least several weeks in advance, you should either have a real bar BoF with a handful of appropriate people, or you can seek opportunities to present at appropriate WG or Area meetings. Yours, Joel Thanks, Donald Yoav Nir wrote: On Aug 1, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: Yoav Nir wrote: Who's folks? A lot of people come to an IETF meeting, and are only following one or two of the working groups. That does not mean that they sit in their hotel rooms for the rest of the meeting. Instead, they pick what looks like interesting meetings, and go there, with the hope of catching something interesting. That's a really good point, actually. I've also made a point in the past of attending at least one session completely unrelated to what I'm working on, in hopes of learning something or getting new ideas or new associations or something. But still, it seems to me that there are two somewhat but not quite orthogonal questions here: 1) whether or not the increasing formalization of the bar BOF reflects an increased expectation of attendance in order to participate/advance work in the IETF, and 2) what a working group meeting is. I'll pass on answering #2, but as for #1, I think the bar BoF institution is mis-used as a working group of last resort. If I can't present my idea at a regular working group (because of time constraints or because it doesn't fit the charter of any current WG), and I can't present it at the area gathering (for lack of space), adding a bar BoF to the wiki seems to be the only way. In the end we don't get a lot of discussion - merely a presentation + QA session. And still the right people are often not there. So formalizing a bunch of presentations is a good thing, although I think it needs to be done differently. Formalizing a bunch of people throwing ideas around (the true bar BoF) is not a good thing. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
