Subject: [bmwg] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:05:12 -0700 (PDT)

As indicated at the Stockholm IETF's BMWG meeting, BMWG will
be using PSTN conferencing (and probably webex) for the following
interim meeting to advance some specific current work items and
discuss new work proposals.

UTC (GMT) Friday, October 30, 2009 at 13:30:00 to 16:00:00
start times in
Geneva (Switzerland) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:30:00 PM UTC+1 hour CET
New York (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 9:30:00 AM UTC-4 hours EDT
San Francisco (U.S.A.) Friday, Oct 30, 2009 at 6:30:00 AM UTC-7 hours PDT
Note that the USA will still be observing Daylight Savings Time,
while Europe and many other locations be on Standard Time.

See the BMWG Archive for more information, specifically:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/bmwg/current/msg02078.html

Per http://www.ietf.org/meeting/cutoff-dates.html#76, the cut-off
for revised I-Ds is October 26.

Agenda, Slides, (WebEx URL) and PSTN dial-in information will be
published
on BMWG's supplementary web page:
http://home.comcast.net/~acmacm/BMWG/

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:23:47 -0400

James,

The following IESG statement contains rules for interim meetings:

- http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html

I don't see anything in the rules constraining the amount of time
between the interim meeting and the actual IETF meeting. Is there some
other guideline of which I am not aware?

                                Ron

James M. Polk wrote:
> fair - I was off 4 days, and sit corrected.
> 
> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully 
> close, don't you think?
> 
> James
> 
> At 02:44 PM 10/16/2009, Dave Thaler wrote:
>> http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
>> "Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least
>> two weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be
>> published at least one week before call or session"
>>
>> The quoted text at bottom announces a meeting 2 weeks from today,
>> so it seems to meet the two weeks notice requirement to me.
>>
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>>> James M. Polk
>>> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:26 PM
>>> To: IESG Secretary
>>> Cc: Working Group Chairs; [email-masked]
>>> Subject: Re: [IAB] BMWG Virtual Interim Meeting
>>>
>>> Err...  since when are virtual meetings allowable on 10 days notice,
>>> and to occur within 10 days of a full IETF meeting?
>>>
>>> Isn't this too little notice and too close to the actual IETF meeting
>>> to provide the notification necessary and an appropriate separation
>>> to get anything done prior to the actual IETF meeting?
>>>
>>> IMO there needs to be a least 2 weeks notice for any virtual meeting,
>>> and they cannot occur within 2 weeks of the start or end of an IETF
>>> meeting (though I think I like the old 30 day rule for this latter
>>> aspect).
>>>
>>> James
>>>
>>> At 02:05 PM 10/16/2009, IESG Secretary wrote:
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IETF-Announce mailing list
>>>> [email-masked]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> 
> .
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:25:49 -0500

IMO there needs to be a least 2 weeks notice for any virtual meeting, 
and they cannot occur within 2 weeks of the start or end of an IETF 
meeting (though I think I like the old 30 day rule for this latter aspect).

James

---

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:44:57 +0000

-Dave

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:00:58 -0500

James

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:10:32 -0400

> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is awfully  

FWIW, my personal opinion is that if WGs could complete most of what
they actually have to do in interims, prior to the Big Giant Meeting,
we might have some hope of beating back the steady expansion of the
IETF meetings into two weeks.  Especially in case the meetings are
held virtually, in which case the Internet weenies have to eat their
own Internet-virtual-environment dog food.  Which can't possibly be a
bad thing, can it?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]
Shinkuro, Inc.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:10:57 -0400

--On Friday, October 16, 2009 15:00 -0500 "James M. Polk"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> however, Oct 30th is 10 days from the IETF meeting, which is
> awfully close, don't you think?

FWIW, we used to have a firm rule against interim meetings close
to IETF ones.   I have no idea if it got lost in history,
repealed, or is still taken seriously.  If the WG is meeting at
IETF, it leaves insufficient time for minutes and new drafts to
be available before the IETF meeting.  If it is used instead of
a meeting at IETF... well, we used to think that was a bad idea
because it prevented the cross-review and cross-fertilization
that are our justification for big, everyone-meets-in-the-same
place, IETF meetings.

Of course, there are always the possibility of exceptional
cases, which is why we pay the IESG the big bucks.

     john

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:28:05 -0500

>other guideline of which I am not aware?

My understanding was similar to John's note (i.e., I didn't see the 
memo that the 30 window (that I've had to meet a couple of times over 
the years - so I am aware of it) got repealed).

I'm generally concerned about the idea of having a virtual meeting 
during the blackout period when someone can take what was said in the 
virtual meeting and apply that to any existing WG draft and have time 
to submit it for the general IETF meeting.

But again, I guess I missed the memo about the changes in policy 
towards interims and virtual interims.  Maybe it's shame on me for 
not catching this memo as it flew by me on some list.

James

---

From: Ron Bonica <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:15:39 -0400

Folks,

This meeting was one of those exceptional events that John mentioned in
his last email. In Stockholm, the working group discovered that many of
its contributors simply could not attend IETF 76. They were constrained
by many different issues (travel budgets, health, other conflicts).
Since they could not pull off an effective meeting in Hiroshima, they
were left with two options:

- do nothing until IETF 77
- have an interim meeting

Although we don't want to make a practice of replacing regular meetings
with interims, in this case, the only alternative was even worse. So,
the WG agreed to an interim.

Since the WG is not going to meet in Hiroshima, I am not so worried
about the distance in time between the Interim and Hiroshima. So long as
the WG didn't violate any of the state policies of the IETF, I had no
reason to complain.

                                          Ron

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:20:52 -0500

Ron

For the record, I have no issue with virtual meetings. I was just 
commenting on the close proximity to the IETF meeting.

James

BTW - I also am not able to attend Hiroshima for some of the reasons 
you mention (nor is my fellow co-chair...).