Subject: [e2md] E2MD virtual interim meeting

From: Hadriel Kaplan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 17:16:18 -0400

To the BOF chairs:
I think email is not a good way to discuss some of this, and is getting in the way.
I propose we have a virtual interim meeting, with slides and voice.  And I can host it (via WebEx) if the IETF cannot.

-hadriel

---

From: Dean Willis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:31:36 -0500

On Mar 31, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Hadriel Kaplan wrote:

> I propose we have a virtual interim meeting, with slides and voice.   
> And I can host it (via WebEx) if the IETF cannot.
>

Bad news: There are no "formal interims" for BOFs in the IETF work  
process (virtual or otherwise), so we can't have an interim BOF.

Good news: the E2MD BOF is over (barring sending the final minutes in  
for the proceedings). What we now have is an IETF discussion (or  
"interest")  list, where we can talk about the E2MD problem, and we  
can use any kind of discussion format we want.

More good news -- I WAS a BOF chair. Now I'm just another dude on the  
mailing list, albeit with perhaps more of a background on the IETF  
organizational model than some (and probably less background on ENUM  
operations than most). Bernie is in the same boat, although he also  
knows more about ENUM than I do ;-).

Any sort (subject to local law) of communication between participants  
is allowed as far as I know.  So a conference call would be OK, with  
or without slides, and we don't need to meet any IETF rules for  
advance notice of the meeting, etc. It would be nice of us to take  
minutes and a participant list and post those to the E2MD mailing  
list, and we should probably do a "note well" at the beginning of the  
call.

We may wish to appoint a moderator for a call, if we have one. I've  
found this helps things run a little more smoothly.

Looking forward: If we decide to have another BOF with the intention  
of forming a WG in the future, we can do so -- and we can pick chairs  
for that BOF when it comes time for it. If we have another BOF, I  
strongly urge that we have a scope and charter and work plan that will  
give us a broader consensus in the IETF than our last attempt did. In  
fact, we might want to come up with what appears to be a completely  
different mission statement and acronym at that point, just to get  
decoupled from the controversy surrounding E2MD.

--
Dean

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:51:50 -0700

On 3/31/2010 4:31 PM, Dean Willis wrote:
> "interest") list, where we can talk about the E2MD problem, and we can
> use any kind of discussion format we want.

A group can have any discussion or meeting it wants.  The IETF has rules for 
official activities, not for unofficial ones.

It's usually best to focus on deciding what will be the most productive, and 
then worry about the rules secondarily.

> Any sort (subject to local law) of communication between participants is
> allowed as far as I know. So a conference call would be OK, with or
> without slides, and we don't need to meet any IETF rules for advance
> notice of the meeting, etc. It would be nice of us to take minutes and a
> participant list and post those to the E2MD mailing list, and we should
> probably do a "note well" at the beginning of the call.

Exactly right.  Follow the discussion and meeting conduct rules of the IETF.

Not because the group has to but because they are a well-understood framework 
for getting useful things done in a transparent manner.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net