On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/24/2011 10:17 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:Yes! As a process matter I'd be happy to see "Bar BOFs" go away
The biggest challenge is however that we are seeing a massive increase
in "Bar-BOFs"... it's one thing if 5 people get together to figure out a
problem statement, it's another when it's announced...
as a supported activity. I'm unclear on why writing up a problem
statement and trying to gin up discussion on a mailing list is
no longer sufficient, but I think it's pretty clearly a symptom
of process drift.
I tend to think the whole clouds/data center mishegas would be
going a lot better if they'd followed the conventional process
and started with a problem definition (and scoping, for Pete's
sake: *scoping*) rather than giving a bunch of non-technical
presentations at so-called "Bar BOFs," trying to develop interest.
I could be wrong but my sense is that the semi-recognized
partly-supported somewhat-organized insufficiently-coherent
inching-towards-acceptance Bar BOF structure provides a
little too much organizational support for ideas that are less
than fully-formed. And yeah, since remote meeting tools aren't
provided (audio, in particular) people do need to attend in
person if they want to participate in one of those things.
Melinda
Well, I think this actually illustrates why we do need to go to meetings in-person. Typically, unless one has read the relevant drafts and studied the issues ahead of time, it's hard to go to a meeting and have an in-depth understanding from 5-10 minuets of presentation. So, many of us go to meetings to listen and to participate on the topics we actually know and care. At the same time, we often get surprised by the new ideas either from the presentations or the discussion on the mic. This is the time for hallway chat. Sometime, we simply go and bounce new ideas with others.
I think that meeting people and having face-to-face discussion have been one of the key motivations for many of us going to IETF in the first place. The location of the meeting is actually secondary in comparison.
So, yes, remote conferencing tool is needed, better meeting notes would be useful, but the original issue remains: please make IETF meetings easier and cheaper for us to go to. ;-)
Regards,
Ping
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf