INTERNET-DRAFT Thomas Narten Intended Status: Informational IBM <draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt> October 12, 2007 Considerations for Having a Successful BOF <draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt> Status of this Memo By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet- Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress". The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html This Internet-Draft expires on April 12, 2008. Abstract This document discusses tactics and strategy for hosting a successful IETF Birds-of-a-Feather (BOF) Session, especially one oriented at the formation of an IETF Working Group. It is based on the experiences of having participated in numerous BOFs, both successful and unsuccessful. Contents Status of this Memo.......................................... 1 1. Introduction............................................. 2 draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 1]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 2. Ideal Steps.............................................. 3 3. The BOF Itself........................................... 7 4. Pitfalls................................................. 8 5. Miscellaneous............................................ 10 5.1. Chairing............................................ 10 5.2. On The Need For A BOF............................... 11 6. Security Considerations.................................. 11 7. IANA Considerations...................................... 11 8. Acknowledgments.......................................... 11 9. Normative References..................................... 12 10. Informative References.................................. 12 11. Author's Address........................................ 12 1. Introduction Note: This version (-03) of the document has no substantive changes over -02; it was resubmitted after the previous version expired. This document provides suggestions on how to host a successful BOF at an IETF meeting. It is hoped that by documenting the methodologies that have proven successful, as well as listing some pitfalls, BOF organizers will improve their chances of hosting a BOF with a positive outcome. There are many reasons for hosting a BOF. Some BOFs are intended to be a one-shot presentation on a particular issue, in order to provide information to the IETF Community. Such BOFs are not intended to result in the formation of a Working Group (WG). In many cases, however, the intent is to form a WG. In those cases, the goal of the BOF is to demonstrate that the community has agreement that: - there is a problem that needs solving, and the IETF is the right group to attempt solving it. - there is a critical mass of participants willing to work on the problem (e.g., write drafts, review drafts, etc.) - the scope of the problem is well defined and understood, that is, draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 2]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 people generally understand what the WG will work on (and what not) and what its actual deliverables will be - there is agreement that the specific deliverables (i.e., proposed documents) are the right set - it is believed that the WG has a reasonable probability of having success (i.e., in completing the deliverables in its charter in a timely fashion) 2. Ideal Steps The following steps present a sort of "ideal" sequence for hosting a BOF where the goal is formation of a working group. The important observation to make here is that most of these involve planning for and engaging in significant public discussion, with sufficient time for iteration and broad participation, so that much of the work of the BOF can be done on a public mailing list in advance of -- rather than during --- the BOF itself. It is also important to recognize the timing constraints. As described in detail below, the deadline for scheduling BOFs is approximately one month prior to the IETF meeting. Working backwards from that date, taking into consideration the time required to write drafts, have public discussion, allow the ADs to evaluate the proposed BOF, etc., the right time to start preparing for a BOF is the meeting prior to the one in which the BOF is desired. By implication, starting the work aimed at leading to a BOF only 2 months prior to an IETF meeting is in most cases too late, and will likely result in the BOF being delayed until the following IETF meeting. 1) A small group of individuals gets together privately, discusses a possible problem statement, and identifies the work to be done. The group acts as a sort of "design team" to formulate a problem statement, identify possible work items, and propose an agenda for a BOF. Possible substeps: a) Consider whether the work might already fall within scope for an existing Working Group, in which case a BOF might not even be necessary. Individual Working Group charters can be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html and indicate what a group is scoped to work on. b) Select an area or areas where the work most naturally fits in draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 3]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 by identifying WGs that most closely relate to the proposed work. Note that it is not uncommon to find that a work item could easily fit into two (or more) different areas and that no one area is the obvious home. c) Consult with specific WGs to see whether there is interest or whether the work is in scope. This can be done by posting messages directly to WG mailing lists, contacting the WG chairs, or contacting individuals known to participate in a particular WG (e.g., from their postings or from documents they have authored). d) Consult with an area-specific mailing list about possible interest. (Most areas have their own area-specific mailing lists. Follow the links under each area at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html to find details.) e) Produce one or more Internet Drafts, describing the problem and/or related work. It cannot be emphasized enough that for the BOF, drafts relating to understanding the problem space are much more valuable than drafts proposing specific solutions. Timeline: This step can easily take 1-2 months; hence, begin 3-4 months before an IETF meeting. 2) The group may (or may not) approach an Area Director (or other recognized or experienced leader) to informally float the BOF and get feedback on the proposed work, scope of the charter, specific steps that need to be taken before submitting a formal BOF request, etc. By "leader", we mean persons with significant IETF experience who can provide helpful advice; individuals who have successfully hosted BOFs before, current or former WG chairs, IESG or IAB members, would be good candidates. The dividing line between step 1) and 2) is not exact. At some point, one will need to approach one or more Area Directors (ADs) with a specific proposal that can be commented on. Step 1) helps shape an idea into something concrete enough that an AD can understand the purpose and provide concrete feedback. On the other hand, one shouldn't spend too much time on step 1) if the answer at step 2) would turn out to be "oh, we had a BOF on that once before, have you reviewed the archives?". Thus, there may be some iteration involving going back and forth between steps 1) and 2). Also, a quick conversation with an AD might lead them to suggest some specific individuals or WGs you should consult with. It may turn out that it is unclear which area proposed work best draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 4]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 fits in. In such cases, when approaching multiple ADs, it is best to approach the ADs approximately simultaneously, state that you are unsure of which area the work fits in, and ask for advice (e.g., by stating "I'm not sure which area this work best fits under, but it looks like it might be Internet or Security or both"). When contacting multiple ADs, it is strongly advised that you inform them of which other ADs you are conversing with. In particular, it is usually counterproductive and not advisable to go "AD shopping", where if one AD gives you an answer you don't like, you go to another, without telling him/her what the first AD said, in the hopes of getting a different answer. To summarize, steps 1) and 2) involve a lot of "socializing an idea," that is, having discussions with a number of different people to try and get agreement on the problem and the need for and appropriateness of having a BOF. How much such discussion is needed is very subjective, but it is critical in terms of getting agreement that a BOF is appropriate. One way to tell if you are close to getting it right: if when talking to someone about your idea for the first time, they quickly agree that a BOF seems in order and don't have any major concerns. Timeline: Steps 1-2) can easily take 1-2 months; hence, begin 3-4 months before an IETF meeting. 3) Create a public mailing list and post a "call for participation" for the proposed BOF agenda on various mailing lists (e.g., the ietf list). The call for participation advertises that a "community of interest" is being formed to gauge whether there is sufficient interest to host a BOF. The goal is to draw in other interested potential participants, to allow them to help shape the BOF (e.g., by giving them time to write a draft, ask for agenda time, help scope the work of the proposed work, argue that a BOF is (or is not) needed, etc.) Timeline: This step can easily take 1 month or longer; it also needs to be started well before the Internet-Drafts cutoff (to allow participants to submit drafts); hence begin 2-3 months before the IETF meeting. 4) Have real mailing list discussion. It is not enough for a handful of people to assert that they want a BOF; there needs to be broader community interest. A public mailing list allows ADs (and others) to gauge how much interest there really is on a topic area, as well as gauge how well the problem statement has been scoped, etc. At this phase of the BOF preparation, the emphasis should be on getting agreement on the problem statement; discussions about specific solutions tends to be distracting and draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 5]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 unhelpful. Timeline: this step can easily take 1 month or longer; hence begin 2 months before the IETF meeting. 5) Submit a formal request to have a BOF. Instructions for submitting a formal request can be found at http://www.ietf.org/instructions/MTG-SLOTS.html and http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt. Note that as part of making a formal request, the organizers must identify the Area (the area Area Directors will be required to approve the BOF), include a proposed BOF agenda, estimate the attendance, list conflicts with other sessions that should be avoided, etc. If the previous steps have been followed, the Area Directors (ADs) should be in a good position to gauge whether there is sufficient interest to justify approval of a BOF. Note: it almost goes without saying that without one or more Internet Drafts at this point, it is generally pointless to ask an AD to approve a BOF. Timeline: The Secretariat publishes an "important meeting dates" calendar along with meeting information. There is a firm deadline (about 1 month prior to the meeting) for submitting a formal BOF scheduling request. Note: that at the time of the deadline, an AD will need to have sufficient information about the BOF to approve or reject the request, so all of the previous steps will need to have completed. 6) During the 2-4 weeks before an IETF (assuming a BOF has been approved and scheduled), the focus (on the mailing list) should be on identifying areas of agreement and areas of disagreement. Since disagreements or "lack of consensus" tends to be the main reason for not forming a WG, focusing on those specific areas where "lack of consensus" exists is critically important. In general, only after those disagreements have been resolved will a WG be formed, thus, the main goal should be to find consensus and work through the areas of disagreement. Alternatively, a specific case should be made about why the charter as it is written is the best one, in spite of the stated opposition. 7) Prior to the BOF, it is critical to produce a proposed charter and iterate on it on the mailing list to attempt to get a consensus charter. Ultimately, the most important question to ask during a BOF is: "should a WG with the following charter be formed?". It goes without saying that a charter with shortcomings (no matter how seemingly trivial to fix) will not achieve consensus if folk draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 6]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 still have issues with the specific wording. 8) Decide what questions will be asked during the BOF itself. Since the exact wording of the questions is critical (and hard to do on the fly), it is strongly recommended that those questions be floated on the mailing list and with the ADs prior to the BOF, so people understand what they will be asked to give approval to, and to allow the questions to be modified (prior to the BOF) to remove ambiguities, etc. Likewise, discussing those questions in advance may lead to refinement of the charter so that the questions can be affirmatively answered 9) At the meeting, but before the BOF takes place, plan a meeting with all of the presenters to have them meet each other, review the agenda and make sure everyone understands what is expected of them (e.g., what time constraints they will be under when presenting). Use this time to also work through any disagreements that still remain. Do the same "in the hallway" with other interested parties! 10) Consult the tutorial schedule and consider attending relevant tutorial sessions ("Working Group Chair Training", "Working Group Leadership Training", etc.). This is especially the case if you are considering being the chair of a potential WG. Since the role of the WG chair and BOF chair have a number of parallels, a number of the topics covered in the tutorial apply to hosting a BOF and developing a charter. 3. The BOF Itself For the BOF itself, it is critically important to focus on the bottom line: What is it that one is attempting to achieve during the BOF? A good BOF organizer keeps a firm focus on the purpose of the BOF and crafts an agenda in support of that goal. Just as important, presentations that do not directly support the goal should be excluded, as they often become distractions, sow confusion, and otherwise take focus away from the purpose of the BOF. If the goal is to form a WG, everything should lead to an (obvious) answer to the following question: Does the room agree that the IETF should form a WG with the following (specific) charter? One of the best ways to ensure a "yes" answer to the above, is by draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 7]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 performing adequate preparation before the BOF to ensure that the community as a whole already agrees that the answer is "yes". How does one do that? One good way seems to be: 1) Have a public discussion with sufficient time to allow iteration and discussion. (hence, start a minimum of 3 months prior to the IETF meeting). 2) Work with the community to iterate on the charter, and be sure to address the significant concerns that are being raised. (One can address the concerns in advance -- and get advance agreement, or one can have those concerns be raised (again) during the BOF -- in which case it is likely that the proposed charter will not be good enough to get agreement on during the actual BOF). 3) During the BOF, keep the agenda tightly focused on supporting the need for the WG and otherwise making the case that the group has identified a clearly-scoped charter, and has agreement on what the set of deliverables should be. 4. Pitfalls Over the years, a number of pitfalls have been (repeatedly) observed: 1) Waiting too long before getting started. It is very difficult to prepare for a BOF on short notice. Moreover, ADs are placed in a no-win situation when asked to approve a BOF for which the community has not had a chance to participate. Steps 1-4 in Section 2 above are designed to show the ADs that there is community support for a particular effort. Short-circuiting those steps force an AD to make a judgment call with (usually) too little information. Moreover, because the community has not been involved, it is much more likely that significant (and valid) objections will be raised. Often, those objections could have been dealt with in advance -- had there been sufficient time to work through them in advance. 2) Too much discussion/focus on solutions, rather than showing that support exists for the problem statement itself, and that the problem is well-understood and scoped. The purpose of the BOF is almost never to show that there are already proposed solutions, but to demonstrate that there is a real problem that needs solving, a solution would be beneficial to the community, it is believed that a solution is achievable and that there is a critical mass of community support to actually put in the real work of developing a solution. draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 8]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 3) Asking the wrong question during the BOF. Often, BOF organizers feel like there is a need to ask the question "shall we form a WG?". But, unless the question is clear, properly scoped, etc., asking such a question serves no purpose. Even worse, such questions can demonstrate that there is no consensus (yet) for the work and thus no WG should be formed. The right questions to ask are generally along the lines of: 1) Is there support to form a WG with the following charter? (that is, the charter itself is ready, as shown by community support.) 2) Does the community think that that the problem statement is clear, well-scoped, solvable, and useful to solve? 3) Can I see a show of hands for folk willing to review documents? (or comment on the mailing list?) 4) Who would be willing to serve as an editor for the following document(s)? (BOF chairs should take note of individuals who raise their hands, but it is also a useful gauge to see there is a critical mass of editors to work on all the documents that are to be produced.) 5) Does the community think that given the charter revisions discussed during the BOF (subject to review and finalization on the mailing list), a WG should be formed? 6) How many people feel that a WG should not be formed? (If the number of no responses is significant, it would help to ask those saying no why they are opposed.) 7) Before asking a particular question, it is sometimes very appropriate to ask: Do people feel like they have sufficient information to answer the following question or is it premature to ask the following question? Examples of unreasonable questions to ask: 1) Asking folk to approve or review a charter that is put on screen but has not been posted to the mailing list sufficiently in advance. (You cannot ask folk to approve something they have not seen.) 4) Poorly advertised in advance, thus, the BOF itself does not include the "right" participants. This can happen for a number of reasons, including: draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 9]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 - BOF is given a "cute" but unintuitive name (or acronym), causing people to not realize that it would be of interest to them - failing to advertise the BOF in advance to the community of people that might be interested. At a minimum, the existence of a proposed BOF should be advertised on the IETF list as well as specific WG lists that are somewhat related. 5) Providing agenda time for the "wrong" presentations. There is an (unfortunate) tendency to given anyone who requests agenda time an opportunity to speak. This is often a mistake. Presentations should be limited to those that address the purpose of the BOF. More important, presentations should not distract from the BOFs purpose, or open up ratholes that are a distraction to the more basic purpose of the BOF. Examples of problematic presentations: - presentations on specific solutions, when the purpose of the BOF is to get agreement on the problem statement and the need for a WG. Solutions at this point are too-often "half-baked" and allow discussion to rathole on aspects of the solutions, when instead the focus should be on getting agreement on whether to form a WG. 6) Poor time management, leading to insufficient time for discussion of the key issues (this is often closely related to 5). When presentations run over their alloted time, the end result is either squeezing someone else's presentation, or having insufficient discussion time. Neither is acceptable nor helpful. BOF chairs need to give presenters just enough time to make key points -- and no more. It may well be helpful to go over a presenter's slides in advance, to ensure they are on-topic and that they will fit within the time slot. 5. Miscellaneous 5.1. Chairing BOF organizers often assume that they will be chairing a BOF (and the eventual WG). Neither assumption is always true. ADs need to ensure that a BOF runs smoothly and is productive. For some topics, it is a given that the BOF will be contentious. In such cases, ADs may want to have a more experienced person chairing or co-chairing the BOF. Also, those interested in organizing the BOF often are the most interested in driving a particular technology (and may have strongly draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 10]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 held views about what direction an effort should take). Working groups are often more effective when passionately-involved parties are allowed to focus on the technical work, rather than on the management work. Thus do not be surprised (or offended!) if the AD want to pick one or more co-chairs for either the BOF or a followon WG. 5.2. On The Need For A BOF This document highlights the need for allowing for and actively engaging in a broad public discussion on the merits of forming a WG. It might surprise some, but there is no actual process requirement to have a BOF prior to forming a WG. The actual process requirement is simply that the IESG (together with the AD(s) sponsoring the work) approve a formal charter as described in [RFC2418]. In practice, BOFs are used to engage the broader community on proposed work and to help produce an acceptable charter. There are two observations that can be made here. First, BOFs are often held not because they are (strictly speaking) required, but because it is assumed they are needed or because ADs feel that a BOF would be beneficial in terms of getting additional public participation. Hence, those interested in forming a WG should give serious consideration to using the steps outlined above not just for the purposes of leading to a BOF, but to convince the IESG and broader community that a BOF is not even needed, as there is already demonstrated strong consensus that a WG shold be formed. Second, the IESG should not forget that BOFs are simply a tool, and may not even be the best tool in every situation. 6. Security Considerations This document has no known security implications. 7. IANA Considerations This document makes no requests to IANA. 8. Acknowledgments This document has benefited from specific feedback from Brian Carpenter, Spencer Dawkins, John Klensin, Mark Townsley and Bert Wijnen. draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 11]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 9. Normative References 10. Informative References [RFC2418] "IETF Working Group Guidelines and Procedures," S. Bradner, September 1998. 11. Author's Address Thomas Narten IBM Corporation 3039 Cornwallis Ave. PO Box 12195 - BRQA/502 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2195 Phone: 919-254-7798 EMail: narten@us.ibm.com Intellectual Property Statement The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in this document or the extent to which any license under such rights might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr. The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at ietf- ipr@ietf.org. draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 12]
INTERNET-DRAFT October 12, 2007 Copyright Statement Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007). This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. This document and the information contained herein are provided on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. draft-narten-successful-bof-03.txt [Page 13]
