Subject: [bmwg] Interim Meetings

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:10:03 -0400

Folks,

Many people have raised many legitimate questions regarding the BMWG
interim meeting next week. While I am inclined to proceed with the
interim meeting, I would like to articulate some guidelines regarding
future interim meetings.

Provided an interim meeting is required, it is OK to meet if the
following conditions are fulfilled:

- the meeting does not violate any of the guidelines articulated in
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
- the WG met at the previous IETF session
- the WG will meet at the next IETF session

When either of the last two conditions are not met, there is a risk that
the WG is holding an interim meeting in lieu of attending a general IETF
meeting. This is not a good thing and not a precedent that we want to
set. Only under extenuating circumstances will a WG be allowed to hold
an interim meeting if the two last requirements are not met.

In this case, BMWG will not meet in Hiroshima, so the final condition is
not met. However, as I recall, extenuating circumstances will prevent
many (if not most) BMWG contributors from attending IETF 76. So, we will
proceed with this meeting, but will not make a policy of replacing
interim meetings with general meetings.

                                    your friendly AD,
                                      Ron

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:50:58 -0400

At 03:10 PM 10/19/2009, Ron Bonica wrote:
>...In this case, BMWG will not meet in Hiroshima, so the final condition is
Ron,

Thanks for your message clarifying the policy.

A key point I've tried to make all along the way:

In the last 13 years, BMWG has failed to meet at only one IETF,
that was IETF-59 in Seoul. Neither of the co-chairs and few of
the wg draft authors (if any) were able to attend (in my case,
I had agreed to speak in London at the IEE in February, and was
surprised to find the IETF-59 meeting had been moved to Feb from
the usual dates in March).

Clearly, this *is not* a WG that skips all the far-off venues,
and so shouldn't be penalized for recognizing that a
2 hour conference call will work best for all involved,
given that similar conflicts exist with the IETF-76 schedule.

Thanks to all involved for granting BMWG an exception,
Al
bmwg chair