Howdy, There has been a lot of traffic in the past few days on the question of whether the recent p2pi workshop was or was not "open". Having sent a paper in to that workshop and participated in an apps-area workshop, I'd like to weigh in on the question with a fairly blunt reply: not fully. Whenever participation is gated by a committee, it is not fully open. In the p2pi case, Jon and Cullen acted as the gates; they swung wide (thanks, guys!), but you had to either submit a position paper and have it approved by them or get a waiver from them. To quote from their mail of May 2nd: >We've had a number of inquiries from people interested in the workshop >who are reluctant to submit a paper because they have no particular >agenda to push in this space. We'd like to stress that position papers >can shed light on any aspect of the problem or solution space, and we'd >encourage anyone interested in making a technical contribution to >ongoing work in this space at the IETF to submit a paper even if it >serves only to further explain the problem, the requirements, or even >the non-requirements associated with this work. > >That much said, if it is not appropriate for you to submit a position >paper, please contact Cullen and Jon by May 9th to request a waiver. You >can reach us at: jon.peterson@xxxxxxxxxxx, fluffy@xxxxxxxxx That doesn't really matter, though. What matters is that workshops like this are inputs into an open process (in this case, the BoF, in the APPs workshop a list of potential work items). Anyone could participate in the BoF or on the mailing list, and that is where we have to make sure that the full openness remains. The discussion now of the scope of the work in this proposed working group is a critical part of that openness, as it is *the* time early in the process when the IETF community as a whole considers a proposed work plan and commits to it. ALTO is getting very good feedback, and I hope that its Area Directors (and any potential chairs) are listening to it; it's heartening to see the level of interest here when so many WGs are chartered or re-chartered with no comments at all. I hope we can stop focusing on the openness of the workshop as a primary topic in this conversation, and focus on keeping the proposed working group open to input at this pivotal moment. Having hummed for the creation of the WG at the BoF, I obviously support the creation of a WG now. But I'm much, much happier getting the input on charter details dealt with now, as a good discussion now can avoid lots of later stress on the working group machinery. regards, Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf