Subject: side meetings and BarBOFs.

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:57:53 -0400

The number of side meetings is simply overwhelming.
I would like to propose either repealing the "2 BOF" rule, or reminding
ADs that they can authorize more than 2 BOFs, and they should do that.

If we have time/place and people have free cycles for these side
meetings, etc.  can we just put them in the schedule and be done with?

(And no more "BAR" BOFs that aren't in the bar)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:47:46 -0400

Michael, 

a Bar BOF is an discussion among interested people that is open for others. 
Since we like transparency and openness we invite others to join these discussions. 

Would you rather like to have meetings where you are not invited? 

Ciao
Hannes

PS: Discussions in a bar are great if you can actually hear the other person.

---

From: Burger Eric <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:56:25 -0400

I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two shots, people trying again do NOT go through the open, advertised process and thus end up with closed meetings where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not invited. It would be more open and transparent to have these meetings on the calendar, or at least the BOF wiki.

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:14:09 -0400

>>>>> "Hannes" == Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]> writes:
    Hannes> a Bar BOF is an discussion among interested people that is
    Hannes> open for others. Since we like transparency and openness we
    Hannes> invite others to join these discussions.

    Hannes> Would you rather like to have meetings where you are not
    Hannes> invited?

The reason for the bar bof being in a bar, restaurant, bike shed, or
pool-side margarita stand, where yes, you can not hear people more than
a few meters away, is so that there can be lots of high bandwidth
discussion among a small group of peers.   (And, btw, this is one reason
I like the social events we have had in museums, because they tend to be
quiet enough to talk, yet not boring)
  
A reason for the "DoFood" method is so that people who are not talking
have something to do with their mouth :-)

As the size of the group grows, we get instantly into n^2 communications
problems, and we then fail to actually hear anyone due to congestion
collapse.   We then impose slideware and micrphones on the 'discussion',
and the result is that we are not actually any more open than we were
before (because there now isn't time to hear everyone in the room), just
less effective. 

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:00:41 -0400

>>>>> "Burger" == Burger Eric <[email-masked]> writes:
    Burger> I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two
    Burger> shots, people trying again do NOT go through the open,
    Burger> advertised process and thus end up with closed meetings
    Burger> where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not
    Burger> invited. It would be more open and transparent to have these
    Burger> meetings on the calendar, or at least the BOF wiki. 

Yes, I agree with you.

What I observe is that because people think that the two shots are a
very hard limit, that they are instead very shy about asking for a BOF
until they are completely ready.

Really what used to happen in BOFs, is now happening in a hodge-podge of
BarBOFs that actually happen in bars (I was in one last night, and
another was immediately behind me), and other things like the 6tsch
side-meeting which asked for, and got two 1.5 hour lunch time slots.
The 6tsch has a list, and is busy submitting individual drafts, and
could easily have been turned into a BOF with proper datatracker
support.

Perhaps we could call some a "Pre-BOF", with the understanding that this
means that ADs need not be present, and that we can have more than one
Pre-BOF in a timeslot.

There was also a SSH Key management side meeting... was it yesterday?  I
dunno, it was announced very late, and of course, I can't look it up on
the schedule either.

BTW: I think both the ITS BarBOF and the mdnsext BarBOF made progress on
something that likely can be chartered.  The mdnsext had a BOF last
time, but it was clear that it needed some significant amount of agenda
bashing, and so it did not choose to meet this time, because a big
meeting was not justified.  What they did was ENTIRELY reasonable.

What I'm objecting to is "BarBOFs" that are so formal that they are
getting AV support.  Those should just be BOFs or if we like,
"Pre-BOFs", and they should be on the schedule.  (Whether we schedule
through lunch or not, is a seperable discussion)

-- 
Michael Richardson
-on the road-

---

From: "Carlos M. Martinez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:58:17 -0400

Not answering to anyone in particular.

I agree that BarBOFs are useful, I just wish they were better
communicated. If I had learnt about which ones were happening I might
have joined.

cheers

~Carlos

---

From: Ulrich Herberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:11:12 -0400

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Carlos M. Martinez
<[email-masked]> wrote:
[...]
> communicated. If I had learnt about which ones were happening I might

I agree

Ulrich

---

From: Randall Gellens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:14:16 -0700

>  communicated. If I had learnt about which ones were happening I might

It might be helpful as an addition to lunch and evening xBOFs to 
carve out or subdivide some meeting slots into small chunks  (maybe 
30-45 minutes) for various ad-hoc meetings, possibly with meeting 
room space available on first-come basis.  E.g., some of the morning 
slots could be reduced by 30-45 minutes, or some of the late 
afternoon slots could end early.

Separately, perhaps as an addition to the agenda, anyone with work to 
discuss where more than, say, 8 people have expressed interest in 
participating could send email to be identified on the on-line agenda 
and a location identified, either during the normal meeting time or 
outside it.  This could help identify what is going on.  Of course it 
also makes the scheduling conflict even more apparent.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
                              --R. Ploni