Considerations for Having a Successful "Bar BOF" Side Meeting
RFC 6771

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2011-09-22 for -06)
No email
send info
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. 

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2011-09-22 for -06)
No email
send info
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.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2012-08-17 for -07)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my Discuss.
I am please to support this document.

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2012-08-29 for -08)
No email
send info
I agree with a number of the comments already made, particularly those by Wes, Ralph, and Jari.  I have nothing new to add to that.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2011-09-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I very much like this document.

I think it would be helpful to cite RFC 5434 as early as possible in the document. I suggest adding a parenthetical statement to Section 1:

   New IETF work often fits into an existing working group
   and does not require an official "birds of a feather" (BOF) session
   to determine community consensus (for more detailed information
   about BOF sessions, see [RFC 5434]).

In Section 3:

s/much more ineffective/much less effective/

Perhaps make this change in Section 4:

s/too complex/too complex or troublesome/

There is a typo in Section 4:

s/a certain procedures/certain procedures/

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2012-08-27 for -07)
No email
send info
The authors indicated they would make several changes based on last call comments (on -06) that are not reflected in this version. In particular there were comments from Ben Campbell and Spencer Dawkins on material outside the now deleted section 6.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2011-09-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
It may be worthwhile to give some tips on inviting (or not inviting) area directors to your "side meeting" / bar-BOF.

It should say that this isn't necessary, and may not even be advisable in many cases.  Some groups need time to form before they're ready with anything cohesive, and a side-meeting is a good time to establish that BEFORE approaching ADs and describing proposals.

It should be clear that if an AD attends a side-meeting, it is not necessarily a show of support.  They may simply be interested, or often may be concerned or troubled with some aspect of the potential work and relation to existing work  As the side-meeting may be in early stages of developing a viable WG or BoF proposal, there are likely to be many such concerns.
.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-08-29 for -08)
No email
send info
I agree with Wes' and Sean's comments about inferring any level of support when an AD elects to attend (or not attend) a side meeting.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-08-29 for -08)
No email
send info
1. I'm in favor of moving away from the term "bar BOF".  The term, in
my opinion, has baggage in its relationship to "BOF" that would be
better left behind.

2. I encourage any additional verbiage that can be added to emphasize
the lack of any official standing afforded to side meetings; e.g.,
text to address the comment Wes posted that no inferences should be
drawn from the attendance of an AD.
 
3. In this sentence from the intro:

   During recent IETF meetings, "bar BOFs" have become increasingly
   indistinguishable from official IETF BOFs or sometimes even IETF
   working group meetings.

I think it's useful to mention something about "bar BOFs" being
(incorrectly) viewed as a mandatory prerequisite to an official IETF
BOF.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-22 for -06)
No email
send info
1) I support Jari's comment #1.  I think people ought to be able to spam the community asking if there are people interested in topic X and then from those that respond try to set up the unofficial meeting (bar BOF/side-meeting).  I think that's different than spamming lists saying we're having a meeting in room z at 9pm that happens to conflict with the plenary.

2) I'm also not entirely sold on the need to abandon the term "bar BOF".

3) I wholly agree with Wes' comment about the AD attendance not necessarily being a good sign.  It might be worth adding that folks who ask an AD if they're coming shouldn't feel bad if the AD says "no" because it's not a sign of support or disapproval.  I've had to tell people that just because I wasn't going to make it that's okay to proceed because it's not an official meeting.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-12 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
1) I'm not won over to the idea of discouraging the term "bar bof"
generally. I do think we should distinguish those from side-meetings
held as if they were formal wg sessions though and we should discourage
the holding of the latter kind of meeting. So, I'd suggest changing
the last sentence of the abstract to say something like:

  "This document recommends that the community use
   the term "bar BoF" exclusively to refer to side
   meetings that are held in bars and the like and
   to abandon the use of the term for meetings that
   are held in more formal settings such as IETF 
   meeting rooms."

(2) The same change as (1) would be needed in the intro, 2nd
last para.

(3) I think the IETF LC discussion about IPR should result in
some change to section 6, depending on where that goes. I 
reckon that a good outcome to that might be that the Note Well
ought be popped up for side-meetings in IETF meeting rooms
but not otherwise.

(4) I think Wes' suggestion about AD attendance is worth
adding.

(5) People have been known to forget their laptops after
extended bar BoF sessions in real bars. That could be added
to the security considerations.

(6) I guess the Trilogy project may be finished now, so you
may want to change the tense of the ack.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-09-19 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
To comment on Stephen's comment about the use of the term "bar bof". The traditionalist in me prefers to retain that term since it goes back to the origins of the IETF. However I am conscious that the term "bar bof" may well be a cultural issue for some folks. As such it would be good to find a term that was not synonymous with alcohol, but was somewhat more colorful and descriptive than "side meeting". Unfortunately no such term springs to mind.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info