Considerations for Having a Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting
draft-eggert-successful-bar-bof-09

1. I agree with Jari's points in his DISCUSS. The current document seems to be too negative about making of the IETF meetings an opportunity to have people meet and discuss new work in the IETF. I believe that we need text that makes clear that this is not the intention. 

2. I believe that the document needs to describe in a more balanced manner the different options of meeting to discuss new work. The principal thing in my opinion is to make clear that approving a room if available for side meetings needs not be read in any way as an endoresement of the work, but this should be a valid option

3. I find much of section 3 (where to meet) problematic. On one side the text acknowledges the problem many non-native English speakers have understanding native English speakers (and the other way actually) but encourages them to go and meet in bars and restaurants provided they are not too noisy! The point should be IMO - meet wherever and however you believe you can discuss in the best conditions, here are the options, we are here to help. 

4. I would like to raise the point made by Wesley to a DISCUSS. At least we should discuss whether text is needed saying that the participation of the ADs (and maybe also of the IAB members) in side meetings should not be read as an endorsement of any kind, and that their participation is not useful because of the positions they hold, as side meetings are not part of any formal process. 

A horrible error on your otherwise excellent draft:

> Anecdotal evidence exists that at least one Area Director has not
> been able to set foot outside the IETF hotel for a stretch of several
> days during IETF-77.

A week. A full week. I think they let me out on Thursday evening, though. And I saw the sun for the first time on Friday. And why do you pick on Anaheim?

Seriously though I do have a more serious issue. I agree with the thrust of the draft, of course, but I think it is written from a very typical IESG perspective where we try to prevent <horrible thing> from happening. But our role is not just to prevent bad things from happening, its also make good things happen. And I would argue that the draft misses some aspects of the problem from the point of view of the bar BOF folk when it tries to focus on the location of the meeting.

My main issue is that other than giving advice on where to meet, the draft says very little on how to go about making a successful bar BOF. The specifics of the meeting itself are just one aspect. 

1) Unless you are an AD, chair, or key engineer at an important company, you will have trouble even finding the other people to talk to. Part of the reason why people come to the IETF meeting is to have side meetings. We should make it easy for them, but for many people it will be difficult to get started, even if they have an issue of their own. The working group is too busy and they follow their charter, so you don't get time on the agenda. You can't broadcast your desire to talk about the topic, you won't find the additional people. 

I would like to suggest that the document be changed to recommend that its OK to broadcast in the WG meeting (if you get a slot) or on the mailing list that you are interested to talk about a particular topic, please contact such and such. And *then* you can have that bar BOF. Positive description of what the guys need to do, not just forbidding them to meet in the current way.

2) Coming up with new ideas, finding other people to talk to are key benefits of an IETF meeting. The document should more clearly stat that this is a desirable activity. Now it comes across a bit negative. E.g.:

   "... organizers
   should consider the value of holding side meetings at venues where
   such input can be more easily gathered."

3) 

> Finally, some organizers may find
> the process to apply for an official BOF too complex, and so decide
> to simply mimic one.

But it *is* too complex, almost unbearably unlikely to result in a granted BOF. And that is not just the fault of the BOF organizers, we are to blame, too. Perhaps mostly us.

I think the draft should honestly state something about the current BOF processing being difficult.