[16:05:17] Chatroom is started
[16:05:17] glen joins the room
Room Configuration
[16:05:32] Chatroom configuration modified
[16:34:55] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[16:36:04] Warren "Ace" Kumari joins the room
[16:48:56] Pete Resnick joins the room
[16:53:32] glen leaves the room
[16:53:57] Barry Leiba joins the room
[16:56:10] <Pete Resnick> Greetings. Barry, SM, and I have joined the call. Still a few minutes to go.
[16:57:24] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[16:57:28] MichaelRichardson joins the room
[16:57:31] <MichaelRichardson> hi.
[16:57:31] <Adrian Farrel> What y'all talkin' about, now?
[16:58:08] <Pete Resnick> Airline mileage status so far.
[16:58:53] <Warren "Ace" Kumari> Reminder: Meeting link:
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m53f271df6ae5f0a805c2f790d5809e48
[16:59:02] <Barry Leiba> Thanks, Ace.
[16:59:10] <MichaelRichardson> I really would like it if the webex link could always be in the agenda for a virtual interim.
[16:59:20] SM joins the room
[16:59:26] <MichaelRichardson> Calendar->agenda->webex.. All nice clicks using this new-fangled http thing.
[17:00:15] <MichaelRichardson> the "next"button on the webex does not work again.
[17:00:34] <Pete Resnick> Going in as guest?
[17:00:47] <MichaelRichardson> oh, apparently, + is no longer accepted by webex in email addresses.
[17:00:56] <MichaelRichardson> CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A SLA FOR WEBEX?  OR STOP USING IT?
[17:01:40] <MichaelRichardson> apparently, I need a meeting password?
[17:01:45] <Warren "Ace" Kumari> @michael: Webex gives us free service. Unless we find something else which will match that, it seems unlikely that we can easily moved
[17:01:45] <Pete Resnick> Alexey, joining us?
[17:01:49] <SM> Michael, use recall
[17:02:02] <Warren "Ace" Kumari> The link I posted should have wored without password.
[17:02:20] <Pete Resnick> Meeting number: 641 978 746
Password: recall
[17:02:55] <MichaelRichardson> I used to have a mic on my BT headset.  I don't anymore. Odd.
[17:05:05] <MichaelRichardson> I will plug in old wired headset in a moment.  Apparently, it picks up 50Hz noise when in Europe.  I wonder if it will get 60hz now that I'm home.
[17:05:31] <MichaelRichardson> I've just noticed that the *ART* area has a nice Picasso. HAHA.  Good on you guys.
[17:05:47] <MichaelRichardson> duh. I knew that.
[17:05:59] <MichaelRichardson> Van Gough.  
[17:06:15] Russ Housley joins the room
[17:11:10] <MichaelRichardson> so: Updated Recall Procedures for IETF Leadership                                                  draft-rescorla-istar-recall-00
[17:12:12] <MichaelRichardson> what is SM's draft?
[17:12:32] <Adrian Farrel> draft-moonesamy-recall-rev
[17:17:39] <Barry Leiba> Adding me to queue
[17:18:12] <SM> Warren: changing recall is an easier first step
[17:19:13] <MichaelRichardson> so, just to mention that the Kobain (I know that I spelt that wrong...) event was like 1992...  That's 25 years ago.  Very few even remember that event.
[17:19:23] <SM> Kobe
[17:20:11] <SM> Barry: concerned that in doing that, we might lose sight of making remote participants eligible
[17:21:35] <SM> raises hand
[17:21:50] <MichaelRichardson> why the focus on who can *initiate*, vs just sign a call?  Am I missing something?  
[17:21:54] <Barry Leiba> SM: ack
[17:22:00] <SM> Thanks Barry
[17:22:06] <MichaelRichardson> (I don't think that the webrtc WEBEX has a raise hand button)
[17:22:24] <SM> Michael, the wording is that there need to be signatories to initiate that recall process
[17:22:53] <Pete Resnick> MR: My version doesn't have the hand.
[17:24:04] <Barry Leiba> MR: do you want to be in the speaking queue?
[17:24:48] <MichaelRichardson> SM, thank you, I went back to 3777 to be sure.
[17:24:52] Rich Salz joins the room
[17:25:15] <SM> Michael, feel free to ask questions.  I can look up the information
[17:26:49] <MichaelRichardson> What EKR said.  I didn't realize that this spot was going to be so noisy.  I don't understand why we are focused on recall as an eligibility concern, vs selection opportunity.  If the recall committee has the same eligibility as selecting, then it's not just about who can initiate.  It's also about who can serve.  
[17:27:47] <SM> Michael, you and I had a discussion about the nomcom change about five years ago.  I had a draft about that.
[17:27:53] <Barry Leiba> MR: The point of doing the "eligible to initiate/sign recall petition" first is to make a small start on what would otherwise be a large step.
[17:29:13] <MichaelRichardson> Yes, I would like to be in the queue.
[17:29:23] <Barry Leiba> After Ace.
[17:29:59] Rich Salz has set the subject to: Eligibility-discuss Interim on 2019-Oct-24
[17:30:47] Rich Salz gotta go to a work meeting.  good luck folks.  FWIW, I think more discussion is needed.
[17:31:02] <Barry Leiba> Thanks, Rich.
[17:31:19] <Rich Salz> thanks for picking this up!!
[17:33:33] <MichaelRichardson> . o O ( that's a really nice document you have.  Wouldn't want anyone to DISCUSS it, now would we )
[17:34:04] <Pete Resnick> Marshall Eubanks.
[17:35:09] <Barry Leiba> I'm in the queue after Patrick.
[17:37:30] <MichaelRichardson> What Patrick said.
[17:39:07] <Barry Leiba> Ah, I remember.  Back in the queue.
[17:41:56] <Barry Leiba> Barry in queue again, responding to EKR
[17:42:28] <MichaelRichardson> I agree with you Barry completely.  That's why we probably need three sets of rules here.  Category 1: John or Keith Moore or me in the late 2000s, who was eligible, but couldn't attend, but remained involved. Category 2: People who are actively involved (criteria are subject to large debate...) but have never become eligible.  Category 3: people who are peripherally involved.
[17:43:57] <MichaelRichardson> I think that we should take a small bite which it to keep category 1 people eligible.  I think that this could be relatively uncontroversial.  Category 2 could be done through a wide variety of systems, formulas, even plenary actions...
[17:51:40] <SM> raises hand
[17:51:45] <Barry Leiba> ack
[17:53:31] <MichaelRichardson> (so webex needs a gesture interface)
[17:54:50] <Adrian Farrel> No surprise, I agree with Michael about small bites.
[17:55:05] <MichaelRichardson> I lost audio.
[17:55:11] <MichaelRichardson> it returned.
[17:55:21] <Adrian Farrel> I also think that, if (as has been claimed) we are fiddling with something that won't matter anyway, then I see no harm to fiddling
[17:56:06] <MichaelRichardson> @Adrian, I would agree.  I would "No Objection" on the documents. I am not clear which one to go with.  I don't think I care.
[17:56:22] <Barry Leiba> Barry in Q
[17:57:27] <MichaelRichardson> Agree with Barry. They could go together.
[18:01:28] <SM> raises hand
[18:06:32] <MichaelRichardson> IESG count is 15 now?  So you can get 10 signatures from just IESG members, which I think was SM's point just now.
I just spent three minutes trying to get a list of who is the IESG from ietf.org, and I failed...)
[18:07:46] <Barry Leiba> Quickest way is Tools -> Quick Links.
[18:07:47] <SM> Michael, please see Section 3.1 of draft-recall-rev-02
[18:08:06] <Barry Leiba> From there you have IESG: Members
[18:14:37] <SM> raises hand
[18:29:04] Rich Salz leaves the room
[18:29:47] <MichaelRichardson> Barry, I found it finally... because "Groups" spoke "Working Groups" to me, I didn't pick it.
[18:33:07] SM leaves the room
[18:33:15] <MichaelRichardson> I think we can find a way to exclude sock puppets.  I worry about setting the bar too high, actually.
[18:37:03] Russ Housley leaves the room
[18:38:39] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[18:39:52] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[19:49:08] MichaelRichardson leaves the room: Disconnected: No route to host
[22:55:16] mcr joins the room