Subject: [http-state] HTTP-State BoF in Hiroshima (this November) ?

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:05:07 -0700

It seems to me that given the attention and effort Adam, Bil, Daniel, Anne, 
Julian, Jim etc are putting into this HTTP-State nee Cookie specification, that 
it would behoove us to have an official BoF sooner rather than later. Otherwise 
we run the risk of loosing momentum.

Who here will be in Hiroshima (I will) and interested in having a BoF then wrt 
progressing to an actual WG ?

thanks,

=JeffH

---

From: Bil Corry <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:41:30 -0500

=JeffH wrote on 8/27/2009 6:05 PM: 
> Who here will be in Hiroshima (I will) and interested in having a BoF
> then wrt progressing to an actual WG ?

FWIW, I'm planning to attend the next one after Hiroshima: IETF 77 in Anaheim (March 2010).

- Bil

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:50:29 -0700

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM, =JeffH<[email-masked]> wrote:
> Julian, Jim etc are putting into this HTTP-State nee Cookie specification,
> that it would behoove us to have an official BoF sooner rather than later.

Personally I'd encourage the group to not have face-to-face meetings
for technical topics, as they disadvantage those of us who are unable
to travel for whatever reason. IMHO, technical decisions should happen
on the mailing list, so that everyone can take part. (That also
encourages decisions to be made based on researched positions rather
than having decisions happen based on the pressure of deciding things
at a meeting.)

Having said that, I would encourage people to meet socially and/or
discuss things in person informally, whether in unofficial side
discussions at IETF meetings or elsewhere.

> Otherwise we run the risk of loosing momentum.

On the contrary, planning around scheduled meetings is far more likely
to stifle progress than continued e-mail discussion, IMHO.

-- 
Ian Hickson

---

From: Bil Corry <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:00:10 -0500

> to stifle progress than continued e-mail discussion, IMHO.

The BoF is a step towards establishing an official WG.  I asked Lisa if it was possible to create a WG without a BoF and she said it was, but that it wasn't how it was usually done.

So the BoF will be mostly to create/adopt a charter and a list of work items.

- Bil

---

From: Jim Manico <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:07:24 -0400

I'd be happy to host a working session at my house, check out US zip  
code 96703. :)

Jim Manico

On Aug 29, 2009, at 12:50 AM, Ian Hickson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM,  
> =JeffH<[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> http-state mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state

---

From: Ian Hickson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 05:28:41 +0000 (UTC)

> So the BoF will be mostly to create/adopt a charter and a list of work 

So long as we can give input into the process on the mailing list after 
the meeting, that's fine by me. I'm just worried about meetings where 
decisions are made where the only way to contribute to the process is to 
actually be present at the meeting.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

---

From: Jim Manico <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 01:28:32 -0400

I frequenty do meetings that are a hybrid of skype and in person.  
Heck, we can do full skype teleconferencing basically for free...

Jim Manico

On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:28 AM, Ian Hickson <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> So the BoF will be mostly to create/adopt a charter and a list of  
>> work
>> items.
>

---

From: Adam Barth <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:12:31 -0700

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ian Hickson<[email-masked]> wrote:
> to travel for whatever reason.

I support this point of view.  I don't have much (any?) travel budget,
so I probably won't be able to make it to many face-to-face meetings
outside the Bay Area.

I also think it's important to respect IETF customs and processes.  My
understanding is that the BoF session is a customary step in forming a
working group and that it is mostly logistical rather than technical.

Adam

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:50:07 +0200

> actually be present at the meeting.

I recommend reading <http://www.ietf.org/tao.html>, in particular 
<http://www.ietf.org/tao.html#getting.things.done>:

"5.2.  Getting Things Done in a Working Group

One fact that confuses many novices is that the face-to-face WG meetings 
are much less important in the IETF than they are in most other 
organizations. Any decision made at a face-to-face meeting must also 
gain consensus on the WG mailing list. There are numerous examples of 
important decisions made in WG meetings that are later overturned on the 
mailing list, often because someone who couldn't attend the meeting 
pointed out a serious flaw in the logic used to come to the decision. (...)"

BR, Julian

---

From: Dave Kristol <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 13:39:48 -0400

On 08/29/2009 03:50 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> [...]

Another reason for preferring discussions via email is that there's a
written, publicly accessible record, in keeping with the IETF's spirit
of openness.  And an email record makes it possible to go back to help
remember what someone said and what was decided.

Dave Kristol