Thanks Alissa. That answers me. Adrian > -----Original Message----- > From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 08 October 2018 15:11 > To: Adrian Farrel > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Side Meetings at IETF 103 > > 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=99sidemeeti > ngs>. > > > > > 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/ > >
