Not answering to anyone in particular. I agree that BarBOFs are useful, I just wish they were better communicated. If I had learnt about which ones were happening I might have joined.
cheers ~Carlos On 3/11/13 9:56 PM, Burger Eric wrote: > I think Michael's point is that because a BOF only has two shots, people > trying again do NOT go through the open, advertised process and thus end up > with closed meetings where people are (almost always INADVERTENTLY) not > invited. It would be more open and transparent to have these meetings on the > calendar, or at least the BOF wiki. > > On Mar 11, 2013, at 7:47 PM, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> > wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> a Bar BOF is an discussion among interested people that is open for others. >> Since we like transparency and openness we invite others to join these >> discussions. >> >> Would you rather like to have meetings where you are not invited? >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> PS: Discussions in a bar are great if you can actually hear the other >> person. >> >> On Mar 11, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Michael Richardson wrote: >> >>> >>> The number of side meetings is simply overwhelming. >>> I would like to propose either repealing the "2 BOF" rule, or reminding >>> ADs that they can authorize more than 2 BOFs, and they should do that. >>> >>> If we have time/place and people have free cycles for these side >>> meetings, etc. can we just put them in the schedule and be done with? >>> >>> (And no more "BAR" BOFs that aren't in the bar) >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson >>> -on the road- >>> >>> >> >
