Jari - Good clarifications. Yes, this is for *additional* meeting rooms. I like the idea of bar BOFs and design teams.
What does the community think about disclosure requirements for directly-IETF-related work? For example, and I am thinking out loud as a community member, I would expect *some* form of announcement for work group activities, even if a closed design team. That seems to me to be smack in the middle of the IETF openness philosophy. Conversely, I do not see any requirement or, for that matter, benefit from announcing non-IETF-related meetings, like corporate meetings. I would *not* want meeting room rental to somehow become a marketing tool by virtue of being listed in any IETF announcement. -- - Eric On May 19, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On May 19, 2010, at 8:06 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > >> Ray, >> >> Thanks for this. I think the policy is a necessary one, and both the policy >> and the ability to book space is useful for the IETF community at large. >> >> I did have a few issues with the details, however. Inline: >> >>> Group Categories >>> >>> A. Working Groups, BOFs and Community Work Groups >>> >>> 1. There is no charge for the room for these groups. Charges may apply for >>> third party provided audio visual equipment and services, phone services, >>> and food and beverages. >>> 2. The approval of the IETF Chair or AD is required. The IETF Chair or AD >>> will notify the Senior Meeting Planner of the approval. If space is >>> available the Planner will accommodate the request. >>> 3. Working Groups have first priority for reservations made up to noon of >>> the day before; thereafter, rooms will be assigned on a first come, first >>> served basis >> >> >> I think it would be good to clarify that your policy above relates to >> *additional* meeting space needed beyond the usual WG meetings. (Regular >> meetings are approved under a different process, one slot meeting request >> for instance requires no AD approval.) >> >>> 4. Community Work includes that of the IETF, IAB, IRTF, RSE, ISE, and IAOC >>> (not in a priority order) >>> >> ... and design teams? (This is the most frequent request that I get, at >> least) >> >> ... and maybe (non)bar BoFs should be mentioned somehow as well. I'm raising >> this because its not necessarily clear what "community working group" >> actually is. >> >> ... and perhaps it deserves to be mentioned that the offer applies for both >> open and closed groups. Design teams can be closed, for instance, and I >> still want to grant them rooms to meet in. >> >> What about the nomcom? >> >>> 5. The Meeting Host, sponsors and the Internet Society have priority for >>> room requests until two weeks prior to the meeting; thereafter space will >>> be provided on a first come, first serve basis. There will be no >>> grandfathering. >>> >> >> Speaking as someone who has been involved in acquiring meeting space for >> company internal meetings at IETF sites, I wonder if the two week part above >> is really necessary. It would be more convenient if I could confirm space >> earlier. Perhaps you could just say that the sponsor, ISOC, host have >> priority. I think they too have planned their needs in further advance than >> two weeks. > > I think you are misreading this. This does not mean that you can't request > space earlier, or even that you can't be confirmed earlier, just that after T > - 2 weeks it goes to purely first come first service. > > Regards > Marshall > > >> >> Jari >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
