Re: On attending BoFs
2011/7/28 Barry Leiba barryle...@computer.org You're going to ask attendees to self-identify as tourists and leave the room? Today's tourists may well become tomorrow's document editors. ... Let's just assign large enough rooms to BoFs and newly-formed WGs so that the work can start in earnest. I agree. If people are there paying attention, I want them there. Lots of people don't know whether they're going to commit to doing work until the end of the BoF, after they've heard all the stuff about problem statement, work scope, and proposed work items. +1. So far I came only to one IETF meeting. At that time I attended (as a tourist, as you would call it) to a couple of BoF. My motivation for attending was that the BoF title sounded close enough to my interests and I wanted to know something more about it. I could not say if I was willing to be committed in contributing in the next-to-be WG by the title (and maybe a brief abstract) only. Keep also in mind that, although I participate as an individual, I have an employer and I am not entirely free to decide if contributing in some WG or not. (If you are curious: it turned out that one BoF was fairly orthogonal to my interests, while the other one was sufficiently close so that I subscribed to the WG ML and spread the word with few of my colleagues that are more interested in the matter). Riccardo ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
I seem to recall having sometimes seen the chair reserve the front of the seating for people who claim to have read the drafts. d/ On 7/29/2011 12:12 AM, Eric Burger wrote: Just for the record: we want big rooms! On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Scott Brim wrote: And do you really only want people in the room who already know the issues and have decided to be for or against it? If you already have so many of them, you don't need a BOF at all, just take a hum and be done. The main purpose of a BOF is to present. Information to the community so they can decide if the IETF should adopt the work. ___ 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
RE: On attending BoFs
-Original Message- From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 4:06 PM To: IETF discussion list Subject: On attending BoFs I've been encouraged to say this to a wider audience, so here I am. A BoF is the IETF's tool for gauging interest in a new topic and a potential working group charter. This doesn't just mean a showing of people that would track this work if it were to begin, but really the main purpose is to determine the level of commitment to do the work, which includes things like counting people willing to review and comment on documents, people willing to act as editors, potential implementers, and perhaps potential co-chairs. When we ask for a BoF room, we need to give an indication of estimated attendance. Sometimes it's hard to make a good guess and so we underestimate, intending to keep larger rooms available for groups that need them. As a result, the BoF room is packed. But when it's packed with what have come to be known as tourists, those people that could be counted as committed to the work can't even get into the room, which jeopardizes the creation of an otherwise viable working group. I suspect I can safely say Dave Crocker would categorize this as an unintentional denial-of-service attack on the new work. And it's certainly not friendly to the work that's trying to get started by filling a seat in a room because it's warm. Perhaps in the future this should be mentioned to BoF attendees before the meeting really gets going. I certainly plan to do so for future BoFs that I run or at which I present. You're going to ask attendees to self-identify as tourists and leave the room? Today's tourists may well become tomorrow's document editors. BoFs are IETF's tchotchkes. People like new things. As an example, Homenet is a new WG (not a BoF), and was well attended (every seat filled, people sitting on the floor, and standing). Let's just assign large enough rooms to BoFs and newly-formed WGs so that the work can start in earnest. -d ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
You're going to ask attendees to self-identify as tourists and leave the room? Today's tourists may well become tomorrow's document editors. ... Let's just assign large enough rooms to BoFs and newly-formed WGs so that the work can start in earnest. I agree. If people are there paying attention, I want them there. Lots of people don't know whether they're going to commit to doing work until the end of the BoF, after they've heard all the stuff about problem statement, work scope, and proposed work items. I'd rather just make sure we have rooms that are big enough, and leave it at that. BoFs tend to be artificially busy because people like those tchotchkes -- people are interested in seeing what the new proposals are about. Let's not discourage that, but feed it. Barry ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
On 7/28/11 4:06 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: When we ask for a BoF room, we need to give an indication of estimated attendance. Sometimes it’s hard to make a good guess and so we underestimate, intending to keep larger rooms available for groups that need them. I think the BoF chairs and responsible ADs need to request larger rooms for BoFs. After the REPUTE BOF, I talked with the Secretariat (specifically Wanda Lo, who does an amazing job with the schedule!) about poking the chairs and ADs when they request BoF rooms to make sure that we don't assign small rooms to BoFs, at least without careful consideration. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
+$1.00 Have we ever had a BOF that looked under-attended? Not me: always standing room only! Big rooms = good BOF. On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 7/28/11 4:06 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: When we ask for a BoF room, we need to give an indication of estimated attendance. Sometimes it’s hard to make a good guess and so we underestimate, intending to keep larger rooms available for groups that need them. I think the BoF chairs and responsible ADs need to request larger rooms for BoFs. After the REPUTE BOF, I talked with the Secretariat (specifically Wanda Lo, who does an amazing job with the schedule!) about poking the chairs and ADs when they request BoF rooms to make sure that we don't assign small rooms to BoFs, at least without careful consideration. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ 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: On attending BoFs
... and if the room isn't full, that's interesting information too. On 28/07/2011, at 4:10 PM, Eric Burger wrote: +$1.00 Have we ever had a BOF that looked under-attended? Not me: always standing room only! Big rooms = good BOF. On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 7/28/11 4:06 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: When we ask for a BoF room, we need to give an indication of estimated attendance. Sometimes it’s hard to make a good guess and so we underestimate, intending to keep larger rooms available for groups that need them. I think the BoF chairs and responsible ADs need to request larger rooms for BoFs. After the REPUTE BOF, I talked with the Secretariat (specifically Wanda Lo, who does an amazing job with the schedule!) about poking the chairs and ADs when they request BoF rooms to make sure that we don't assign small rooms to BoFs, at least without careful consideration. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ 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 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Eric Burger eburge...@standardstrack.comwrote: +$1.00 Have we ever had a BOF that looked under-attended? Not me: always standing room only! I would also argue that you want BOF tourists. They might turn into participants. They also might point out things like overlap with previous work in the IETF or some other SDO. Regards Marshall Big rooms = good BOF. On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:37 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: On 7/28/11 4:06 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: When we ask for a BoF room, we need to give an indication of estimated attendance. Sometimes it’s hard to make a good guess and so we underestimate, intending to keep larger rooms available for groups that need them. I think the BoF chairs and responsible ADs need to request larger rooms for BoFs. After the REPUTE BOF, I talked with the Secretariat (specifically Wanda Lo, who does an amazing job with the schedule!) about poking the chairs and ADs when they request BoF rooms to make sure that we don't assign small rooms to BoFs, at least without careful consideration. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ ___ 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
Re: On attending BoFs
And do you really only want people in the room who already know the issues and have decided to be for or against it? If you already have so many of them, you don't need a BOF at all, just take a hum and be done. The main purpose of a BOF is to present. Information to the community so they can decide if the IETF should adopt the work. ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: On attending BoFs
Just for the record: we want big rooms! On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:01 PM, Scott Brim wrote: And do you really only want people in the room who already know the issues and have decided to be for or against it? If you already have so many of them, you don't need a BOF at all, just take a hum and be done. The main purpose of a BOF is to present. Information to the community so they can decide if the IETF should adopt the work. ___ 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
