On 8/21/17, 12:02 PM, "John C Klensin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >--On Monday, August 21, 2017 10:41 -0400 Lee Howard ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is there interest in getting together at IETF 100? >> Maybe as a non-WG-forming BoF? > >I almost certainly won't be in Singapore but if there is >adequate need for this to justify such a BOF, I'd be happy to >participate remotely. However, given the usual shortage of >meeting (including BOF) slots, I'd like to at least see a >tentative list of agenda items before forming an opinion about >whether this discussion should take up one of them. As I was cleaning old email, I saw four related drafts: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manycouches-completely-virtual-meeti ngs/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-hubs/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-viewing-hubs/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elkins-ietf-remote-participation-hub s/ I’ve started hearing some consensus on where we should focus, but getting some focused discussion around those drafts seems like a good use of BoF time to me. > >A different question would be when people are actually leaving >Singapore. If the answer is "not until late Friday night or >sometime Saturday", I wonder if it would make sense to look at a >Friday afternoon slot that would not conflict with any WG >sessions. There are a couple of meetings in the afternoon slot immediately following WG meetings. Later in the afternoon is possible, but I have to wonder if people will have any remaining brin capacity at that time. Lee _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vmeet
