Clarify instructions for entering BOF chairs in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bof-requests/new/

[SpencerDawkins]

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bof-requests/new/ says

Fill in the details below. Keep items in the order they appear here.

Required Details

• BOF chairs: TBD

An IETF 119 BOF proponent looked at that, and entered names for this required detail. That confused the responsible AD, because the responsible AD thought ("knew") he was responsible for naming BOF chairs. 😕

I know that anyone proposed by proponents wouldn't actually be a chair until the AD agrees, but not everyone knows that, so the current wording is begging for someone to enter names in this required detail. 😕

The BOF proponent did the responsible thing and talked with people before putting down names, so the people being suggested were also confused. 😕

I know all of this has happened more than once with BOFs while I was on the IESG, and it was just as confusing then, so maybe this is a good opportunity to try to fix that.

It seems reasonable to have the request form say

Required Details

• BOF chairs: To be entered by the responsible AD

Code of Conduct

• I agree to follow the IETF's Code of Conduct

[pselkirk]

Looking at "bofreq.*-00", I see that 15/67 (22%) have "BOF chairs" set to something other than "TBD".

Would it be better to change the template header to "Proposed BOF chairs", and let the AD change it to "BOF chairs"?

[SpencerDawkins]

What follows is, of course, my opinion. @zaheduzzaman was the responsible AD we confused - I'm tagging him, in case he has an opinion.

Looking at "bofreq.*-00", I see that 15/67 (22%) have "BOF chairs" set to something other than "TBD".

Would it be better to change the template header to "Proposed BOF chairs", and let the AD change it to "BOF chairs"?

One might think so, and that would solve one problem

• people think they are BOF chairs before the responsible AD has seen the bofreq,

but there's still another problem:

• the contents of the bofreq are publicly visible, so EVERYONE knows who was proposed, and if the AD picks someone else - as happened for the bofreq I was talking about, that's just awkward for potential chairs who weren't selected.

The proposed solution clearly puts the AD in charge of personnel decisions.

[SpencerDawkins]

I should also thank you for fact-based analysis!

Looking at "bofreq.*-00", I see that 15/67 (22%) have "BOF chairs" set to something other than "TBD".

I talked to a lot of people about BOF proposals as both an IAB member and an AD, and there are a fair number of people who show up at the IETF with a thought, a draft, a mailing list, and a proposed charter, but don't have anyone in mind as chairs. I'd bet that's responsible for a solid chunk of the TBDs - if the proponents had looked at the current template for five more minutes, they could easily have entered names. 😄

[rjsparks]

IMHO, I think we should remove it from the template. ADs know to put something in before the point of knowing chairs matters or not.

[SpencerDawkins]

That would work for me.

[zaheduzzaman]

That would help! //Zahed

…

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 at 14:11, Spencer Dawkins ***@***.***> wrote: That would work for me. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6968 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMTKZCJSJNYP4ZE3N64NULYTSZXVAVCNFSM6AAAAABCJF23L6VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBTG42DANZRHE> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>