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

[=JeffH]

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
_______________________________________________
http-state mailing list
http-...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state

[Bil Corry]

=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

[Ian Hickson]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:05 PM, =JeffH<Jeff....@kingsmountain.com> wrote:
> 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.

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

[Bil Corry]

Ian Hickson wrote on 8/28/2009 11:50 PM:
>> 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.

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

[Jim Manico]

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

Jim Manico

[Ian Hickson]

On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Bil Corry wrote:
>
> So the BoF will be mostly to create/adopt a charter and a list of work
> items.

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. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

[Jim Manico]

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

[Adam Barth]

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Ian Hickson<i...@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 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.

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

[Julian Reschke]

Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009, Bil Corry wrote:
>> So the BoF will be mostly to create/adopt a charter and a list of work
>> items.
>
> 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.

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

[Dave Kristol]

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

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

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