RE: Proposed alternate milestones (Re: Straw-man charter)

[George Jones <gmj@pobox.com>]

> >
> > At 11:41 AM 6/5/2004 -0700, David Kessens wrote:
> > > >       - mention NANOG in the discussion under "methods", but leave
> > > >         it out of the milestones
> > >
> > >a small nitpick:
> > >please be careful to talk about 'operator forums' in general,
> > >IETF listens to input from operators across the globe.
> >
> > Good point. The IETF is a global group. Nanog is a North American
> > group.

No intent to exclude other groups.   While working on the opsec draft
I presented @ RIPE and IETF in Vienna.   A BoF was held in Seoul.

The idea is most certianly to be as inclusive as possible.
My observation, confirmed by a others, is that operators
do not participate as activlely as one would hope in
the IETF, even when it would be directly to their benefit...
but if you corner them (say, after giving a talk at NANOG)
a wealth of knowledge and experience can be made to flow.
That's what we need to capture.

I'm not up on the details/rational of having interim working group
meetings.  I think the desired input could be had by scheduling BoFs
at relevent operator fora.  I'd be open to arguments for a formal
working group if there's a reason to have one over a BoF.

Perhaps the best thing to do is to put language in the
charter saying that "informal BoFs will be held at
relevent operator fora".  One would hope with a
working group we will have people attending a good
chunk of such meeting anyhow who would be willing
to run a BoF there.

And, yes, periodic postings to relevent mailing lists
sould be made, but in my experience you don't get a
lot of response.

Thanks,
---George Jones