Hi Adrian, > On Oct 4, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Adrian Farrel <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I assume that this has been discussed by the IESG and is a conscious decision. Yes, definitely. Part of this is in response to the feedback we received around IETF 102 requesting to make it easier for people to organize their schedules, side meetings included. > > For some time, the IETF has struggled with demarcation of those things that have > IETF approval and those that don't. > > A challenge with side meetings was that they tended to get represented as though > they were approved IETF meetings. There used to be a desire to clearly separate > "approved BoFs" from "ad hoc side meetings", yet there was a strong urge to > encourage and facilitate side meetings. > > This was reconciled by allowing rooms to be booked for side meetings, but not > publicising or recording the bookings on any publically visible web site. This has not been true since IETF 99, when we started experimenting with the current side meetings sign-up procedure where sign-ups are FCFS and do not require AD approval. See, e.g., <https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/doku.php?id=99sidemeetings>. > > This is in keeping with the policy linked to below, but a calendar might be an > issue unless it is taken down after the meeting so that record of the side > meetings goes away. This is an interesting point for discussion. Even without the wiki or the calendar, many side meetings get announced on public mailing lists. Obscuring the fact that they occurred afterward might help them seem less official, but it is also possible that clearly labeling the wiki or calendar could serve the same purpose without setting the precedent that we are erasing meeting artefacts. > > It might also help for the IESG to re-clarify the applicability of the IPR > policy to side meetings and distinguish them (if necessary) from working group > design team meetings. We could do this, but we would need to be careful about giving the right impression. The updated IPR policy applies to hallway conversations as much as it does to side meetings or working group meetings, as long as the people involved are "acting in order to influence the outcome of a discussion relating to the IETF Standards Process." It doesn’t distinguish, so I would want to be cautious about calling out side meetings specifically as a venue where it applies. Thanks, Alissa > > Thanks, > Adrian > >> On Oct 4, 2018, at 8:48 AM, IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat@xxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> As communicated back in May (https://www.ietf.org/mail- >> archive/web/ietf/current/msg107813.html), the IESG is running an agenda >> experiment on Friday of the IETF 103 meeting week. >> >> Monday through Thursday, we will have two rooms available for attendees to >> reserve for side meetings, as usual. On Friday, because there will be no > working >> group meetings, we will have eight rooms available for side meetings. > Projectors >> will be provided in all of the meeting rooms. Please note that all side > meetings >> must conclude by 13:30. >> >> We realize that keeping track of all of these side meetings may prove >> challenging, so we are currently looking into options for a side meeting > calendar. >> We hope to have more information soon. In the meantime: >> >> - Meeting wiki: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/ietf103 >> - To reserve a side meeting room: >> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ietf/meeting/wiki/103sidemeetings >> - IETF Meeting Room Policy: https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/meeting- >> rooms-policy/ >
