Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I mean, you're trying to get people to sign on to review, and even
>> co-author. I.e., you have to advertise your proposal. How will you do
>> that if you don't get a chance to tell people about it? Especially in a
>> BoF.
> A good case can be made for presentations in BOFs.
> It would also be useful if latecomers to a WG, and "tourists", could have a
> way to get up to speed. If we had better ways of doing that, our standards
> might benefit from earlier review from a more diverse set of interests.
> IETF Last Call is too late to fix much.
> I have been wondering if it would be worth it for authors or WGs to publish
> "catch up" slides, or even to hold "catch up" sessions in advance of WG
> meetings, so that newcomers and tourists could contribute more effectively
> (less disruptively) if they chose to attend the WG sessions.
Yes. It's also soemtimes hard to find the BOF slides because the WG goes
ahead with a different name. Those BOF slides often contain very good
problem statements, some really useful diagrams, etc..
It would be good if step one of forming a WG was to post all the BOF
materials to the WG clearly identified as such. PDF copies, but also the
editable version because future people will want to do variations as they
progress.
> I also wonder if there might be a significant "market" for such sessions from
> the broader technical population, from people interested in what the future
> might hold. Maybe there could be N days of "catch up" presentations and
> BOFs, followed by M days of working group sessions with NO presentations.
> (As a first approximation, let N=2 and M=3, and tweak as necessary; put BOFs
> on the last of the N days.) Most WG participants wouldn't need to attend
> the first N days (though some might want to see what's going on in other
> groups/areas), whereas those who just wanted an overview, wouldn't need to
> attend the last M days.
This would be very interesting.
> Maybe there could also be some renumeration (or at least free registration)
> for those doing presentations, which could offset some of the meeting costs
> for active participants and enable a more diverse set of people to
Or maybe just a cut of the youtube revenue :-)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
