Subject: [apps-discuss] Call for APPSAWG topics for November meeting

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 12:01:02 -0700

Colleagues,

It's that time again.  If you would like to make a presentation to APPSAWG
or to the APP Area General Meeting when we convene in November, or if you
would like to request that someone cover a specific topic, please email
[email-masked] with your topic and requested time.  We need
some idea of how long the meeting will be so we can request an appropriate
time slot.

The deadline for us to request a time slot is only a few weeks away, so
please don't leave your requests until the last minute.

Thanks!

-MSK, APPSAWG co-chair

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 13:54:37 -0600

On 9/9/13 1:01 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> It's that time again.  If you would like to make a presentation to 
> APPSAWG or to the APP Area General Meeting when we convene in
> November, or if you would like to request that someone cover a
> specific topic, please email [email-masked]

Perhaps it would make sense to have a discussion about core aspects of
application security, instead of the usual smorgasbord of topics.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:56:09 -0400

> please don't leave your requests until the last minute.

One alert: there has been some pushback in the IESG that we have been
taking the Monday morning slot for a long time.  We might be able to
get it again... or there might be some competition, and we might wind
up in a different slot.  We'll have to see.

Barry

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:55:30 +1000

> up in a different slot.  We'll have to see.

How could that possibly be an issue? 

Are the ADs secretly Hollywood stars who need top billing? Or are they just trying to keep us on our toes?

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:47:51 -0400

> trying to keep us on our toes?

I don't understand either the question or the snark.  Care to explain?

We don't schedule different area meetings in conflict with each other.
We don't schedule BoFs in conflict with area meetings.
Other areas want to use an early slot to do planning and outlook for the week.
We prefer to schedule BoFs early in the week.

All of those mean that the Monday morning slot is one that's in some demand.

Barry

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:54:35 -0600

On 9/10/13 10:47 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> One alert: there has been some pushback in the IESG that we
>>> have been taking the Monday morning slot for a long time.  We
>>> might be able to get it again... or there might be some
>>> competition, and we might wind up in a different slot.  We'll
>>> have to see.
>> 
> We don't schedule different area meetings in conflict with each
> other. We don't schedule BoFs in conflict with area meetings. Other
> areas want to use an early slot to do planning and outlook for the
> week. We prefer to schedule BoFs early in the week.
> 

FWIW, I see no special need for AppsArea to meet on Monday morning.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 15:45:14 +1000

> I don't understand either the question or the snark.  Care to explain?

In general, I find planning my IETF weeks very frustrating. There are very often conflicts (in terms of things I need to see), and the agenda is available very late. Remember that IETF travel for me is expensive, especially when done at the last minute, and time-consuming; juggling priorities, work commitments and the realities of travelling across multiple hemispheres is very difficult. 

The one bit of sanity-preserving information that I've had when doing this planning is that I've known that APPSAREA is on Monday AM. Now the IESG is taking that away. So, apologies for my outburst of snark.

Other organisations do this better. E.g., the W3C is having a plenary week in November, and the agenda has been known for some time. Their groups have two-day meetings, so they can actually get some work done, and it's possible to arrange things so you can slip out of one meeting to catch a topic in another (without the hall sprints that ADs are becoming legendary for).

It's true that they have ~31 groups meeting in a week and we have ~110, but that only makes me wonder if we're really seeing value by packing so much into one week (or indeed, one organisation).

Regards,

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:36:08 +0100

> FWIW, I see no special need for AppsArea to meet on Monday morning.

I do find a fixed time for Apps Area to be a good thing for personal 
planning. I wish all Areas do the same (Security have SAAG in pretty 
much fixed slot as well.)

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:06:45 -0400

> In general, I find planning my IETF weeks very frustrating.

Indeed; you're not alone.

> The one bit of sanity-preserving information that I've had when doing this planning
> is that I've known that APPSAREA is on Monday AM.

And that's one reason we've tried to keep it there.  Another is that
it's a good slot when we want to use it to introduce and plan the
week, and to set people up for hallway or bar conversations later in
the week.

> Now the IESG is taking that away.

We're not sure about that.  What happened last time is that a couple
of ADs noted
- that we've had that slot for a long time, and
- that it's a slot they would also find useful, and
- having appsawg in that slot means that certain other things can't be
scheduled there, so it exacerbates some of the scheduling
difficulties.

At this point, I'm not sure what will happen.  It's certainly true
that we have no particular claim to that slot, and it's hard to
justify saying, "No, your area can't have it because we were there
first," much as I might like to.

> Other organisations do this better.

I understand that our scheduling is different to that of other
organizations.  The problem is that what you call "better", others
would call "worse".  To get a firm agenda earlier, we'd have to have
WGCs get their plans and agendas in earlier (and every time I suggest
that I get WGCs pounding on my door, carrying torches and axes), we'd
have to get the BoF requests in earlier... etc.

A large reason our face-to-face scheduling is the way it is, is that
our work is done in a way that's different to other organizations:
we're working stuff out on the mailing lists constantly (at least for
the really active work), and we don't know two months before the
meeting what we'll need to talk about at the meeting.

That's also why we don't have the "two days of concentrated work"
model for WG meetings: the WGs are expected to be doing that work on
the mailing list, day to day, month to month, and the meeting time is
meant to be brief and to the point, only for working out sticky points
that need 20 minutes of fisticuffs rather than weeks of circular
arguments on the list.

> that only makes me wonder if we're really seeing value by packing so much into one
> week (or indeed, one organisation).

That is, indeed, a discussion that comes up periodically.  If you
really want to have that one, head for the main IETF discussion list.

Barry

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:18:30 +1000

On 12/09/2013, at 2:06 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
> At this point, I'm not sure what will happen

Suggestion: AD cage match

> .  It's certainly true

My windmill quota is full, but thanks.

Cheers,

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 16:57:31 +0300

On 9/9/13 10:54 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
(as individual)

I like this proposal, and I think it would an interesting session if we 
manage
to dedicate at least the majority of the time to this argument
with some short presentation, time for discussion

/Salvatore

-- 
Salvatore Loreto, PhD
www.sloreto.com