Fred said: >Personally, call me stuck-in-the-mud, but this isn't an academic conference in which grad students are advertising for a professor that might be interested in mentoring them or a sponsor might fund their research. Ted said: >But you have to bring your own >engineering talent. It's unlikely you will be able to get people to >do work for you for free. One of the goals of the Bar Bof is to solicit interest in new ideas AND to get people to do work for you for free. Although I'm mostly in agreement with Fred about going overboard on the Poster idea, perhaps there's something we can use At the risk of being flamed - let me suggest a high-tech, low impact, no presenter, poster show proposal. Secretariat provides a projector and PC and a wall. Individuals provide a 1 page PDF that can be blown up to be displayed using the above. They're projected for 5 minutes (1 minute, 10 minutes - pick a number), and then on to the next - a very slow slide show. When you get to the end, repeat - or randomize the order and repeat. Maybe have one of those 2D bar codes with contact information for the poster child - I mean IETF attendee. Posters are also available as part of the proceedings. Poster is suggested for any Bar Bof, others may take advantage to drum up business for their WG. Due in at least 1 week before the meeting. Secretariat does a simple content pass to ensure items are relevant technical (as opposed to political, social etc). IDs are useful as ways to start discussion, but tend to require time to consume. Posters - or at least good posters - can convey enough information in a short time to let someone know whether or not to pay attention and maybe attend the Bar BOF for free beer. Mike At 03:20 AM 1/11/2011, John C Klensin wrote: >--On Tuesday, January 11, 2011 09:32 +0200 Yoav Nir ><ynir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> We can have as high a barrier as necessary to ensure there are >> no more than, say, 12 posters. > >Yes, but that is another aspect of why I don't want to go down >this path. As soon as you say "high barrier", you imply some >sort of review process. That takes up someone's time. Given >our requirements about openness, there is considerable potential >for our having to create a process for appointing the reviewers >and/or a requirement for an appeals procedure for anyone who >thinks they have been put at a disadvantage by having a poster >turned down, etc. > >That is very different from academic conferences in which review >norms are already in place and the culture doesn't permit making >claims based on being put at a disadvantage for standardization >because a contribution was turned down. As Fred pointed out in >a different way, we need to remember that the IETF has become >primarily an SDO and that, as an open SDO, we have procedural >and openness requirements that don't apply to various sorts of >conferences. > >Academic conferences also tend to be a lot more leisurely than >IETF meetings -- people can wander through poster sessions with >having a negative effect on more important schedules. > >Alternate suggestion that might accomplish part of the goal: >convince an AD or two that there would be benefit in conducting >micro-BOFs (or, if you prefer, a cross between a BOF and >speed-dating). The entry requirement would be an I-D posted >well in advance and a fairly normal BOF proposal but with >extremely short, presentation-only, or presentation and quick >questions, with maybe six to 10 presentations based on a poster >or handful of slides. > >So... > >ADs/IESG get BOF proposals. Those that are clearly ready get >BOFs as usual. Of those that are not but that would seem to >benefit from presentation time, ADs could allocate micro-BOF >slots either in area meetings or in a normal slot divided among >many of these. Note that we are already doing presentations >like that in some area meetings -- this is not a radical >suggestion nor one that requires major logistical changes. > >No formal requirement for minutes, no status for any decisions. >People who discover that they want to have further discussions >could arrange to meet informally --in the halls, at breaks, even >at the bar. > >But note that any proposal for such a session starts with a >posted I-D that people can look at in advance if they are >interested. If the real goal is to avoid the need to post an >I-D, I just don't see that working or the "poster" time being >well-spent. > > john > >_______________________________________________ >Ietf mailing list >Ietf@xxxxxxxx >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf