Ted, I was at the workshop representing the IAB, and I fully agree. While it was held in a good-sized auditorium, given the obvious interest in the topic, if everyone who wanted to attend or get on the agenda could, we would have needed a venue two or three times the size, more administrative support, and probably have needed to extend the workshop over at least two days. Given the size of the venue and the time available, I thought the way the workshop was conducted was extremely reasonable and fair. Cheers, Andy On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Ted Hardie <hardie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf