[18:48:26] Pete Resnick joins the room
[19:22:05] francesca joins the room
[19:22:31] francesca has set the subject to: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/session/gendispatch
[19:27:56] jbui leaves the room
[19:29:57] <francesca> Etherpad: https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-gendispatch
[19:35:47] jbui joins the room
[20:10:30] James Gruessing joins the room
[20:46:24] Joel Halpern joins the room
[20:55:08] adrianfarrel joins the room
[20:57:17] Yoshiro YONEYA joins the room
[21:24:09] sftcd joins the room
[21:29:52] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[21:31:11] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[21:31:48] Barry Leiba joins the room
[21:31:58] martin.duke joins the room
[21:32:12] sfuerst joins the room
[21:32:34] lellel joins the room
[21:32:50] <francesca> Webex: https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m0bb185af7ce41e4288a852f124f75a7b
[21:32:58] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[21:32:58] <francesca> Meeting material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/session/gendispatch
[21:33:53] <francesca> Hi, and (soon) welcome to gendispatch!
[21:34:50] Dan York joins the room
[21:34:55] adam joins the room
[21:35:10] <adam> Can we have Pete do sound effects for all of these sessions?
[21:35:16] spencerdawkins joins the room
[21:35:19] wseltzer joins the room
[21:35:29] brong joins the room
[21:35:37] martin.duke joins the room
[21:35:40] xp29srs joins the room
[21:35:42] <brong> I will do Jabber Scribe
[21:35:59] Mirja joins the room
[21:36:00] mcr joins the room
[21:36:25] Alice Russo joins the room
[21:36:27] <mcr> . o O ( sound effects? )
[21:36:28] msk joins the room
[21:36:32] <Alexey Melnikov> brong: you are a good find :-)
[21:36:38] <brong> :)
[21:36:39] <msk> +1 to beatboxing
[21:36:48] martin.duke leaves the room
[21:36:51] martin.duke joins the room
[21:37:20] jimsch1 joins the room
[21:37:34] <Olaf Kolkman> ARe others experiencing the noise too?
[21:37:41] csperkins joins the room
[21:37:49] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[21:37:50] <sftcd> audio ok here
[21:37:53] <brong> no noise for me
[21:37:59] <mcr> no noise for me.
[21:37:59] <Dan York> Sounds good here
[21:38:02] m&m joins the room
[21:38:14] <brong> yes, missed the second try
[21:38:22] hta joins the room
[21:38:35] <sftcd> people are surprisingly happy to not be hearing Pete:-)
[21:38:41] Ted.h joins the room
[21:38:48] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[21:39:11] ben@nostrum.com joins the room
[21:39:19] Warren Kumari joins the room
[21:39:57] <mcr> are we supposed to self-sort the bluesheet?
[21:40:12] <Jonathan Lennox> None of the groups I've been in so far have done so
[21:40:18] <msk> what is this "sort" of which you speak?
[21:40:18] <Warren Kumari> Why can't the cats be in the office?!
[21:40:19] tfpauly joins the room
[21:40:23] Ross joins the room
[21:40:27] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[21:40:28] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[21:40:34] Kazunori Fujiwara joins the room
[21:40:35] Jean Mahoney joins the room
[21:40:40] Seth Blank joins the room
[21:40:52] ek joins the room
[21:40:54] <Warren Kumari> Be nice to the cats!
[21:41:00] <brong> @Warren: my cat has been told off because he climbs on my keyboard - he's got fresh food so that should distract him
[21:41:10] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[21:41:11] <Warren Kumari> Hmmmm….. unconvinced....
[21:41:17] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[21:41:18] cabo joins the room
[21:41:19] Martin Thomson joins the room
[21:41:23] <Jonathan Lennox> You need a decoy keyboard
[21:41:30] joehall joins the room
[21:41:33] <Warren Kumari> @brong: or just pet them more...
[21:41:36] <jimsch1> No, a decoy office
[21:41:39] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[21:41:45] <brong> I did that for the last half an hour - now I need my hands for typing
[21:41:45] lellel leaves the room
[21:41:46] <Martin Thomson> My cat is very careful to avoid my keyboard.
[21:41:52] aretana joins the room
[21:41:53] RjS joins the room
[21:42:00] dschinazi joins the room
[21:42:06] John Levine joins the room
[21:42:12] Brian Carpenter joins the room
[21:42:14] jon-ietf joins the room
[21:42:14] <Martin Thomson> That's not training, it's likely because it's a mechanical keyboard and difficult to walk on for her.
[21:42:20] mnot joins the room
[21:42:24] <Warren Kumari> You just need more hands.
[21:42:36] Amelia Andersdotter joins the room
[21:42:43] <brong> my cat is a jerk, so he walks on the keyboard just because he can
[21:42:44] Jeffrey Yasskin joins the room
[21:42:49] Rich Salz joins the room
[21:43:15] Klensin joins the room
[21:43:20] Shuai Zhao joins the room
[21:43:26] Shuai Zhao leaves the room
[21:43:30] Shuai Zhao joins the room
[21:44:02] <francesca> Etherpad: https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-gendispatch
[21:44:06] chi.jiun.su joins the room
[21:44:12] <ben@nostrum.com> I am disappointed that the "cat typing" app is no longer available for mac
[21:44:19] <francesca> Meeting material: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/session/gendispatch
[21:44:38] <sftcd> Brian presenting I hope:-)
[21:44:42] jhoyla joins the room
[21:44:42] SM joins the room
[21:44:56] Marco Tiloca joins the room
[21:44:58] <Barry Leiba> We love it when the agenda moves right along.
[21:45:07] <francesca> I love Pete's enthusiasm
[21:45:09] <Seth Blank> don't jinx Pete!
[21:45:15] <Brian Carpenter> I'll present unless technology decides otherwise
[21:45:47] <brong> gotta love tech
[21:45:58] <brong> @Pete hit escape - it works in vi
[21:46:15] <francesca> Misja's slides: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/slides-107-gendispatch-definition-of-new-tags-for-relations-between-rfcs-00.pdf
[21:46:24] <cabo> Oh no, no slide numbers.
[21:46:29] <francesca> Mirja*
[21:46:32] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[21:46:37] lpardue joins the room
[21:47:10] <Pete Resnick> @cabo: I think there are only 5 slides. Memorize. ;)
[21:48:00] <cabo> I can do that, but during my last tenure as WG chair I became convinced accepting slides without numbers is an item of chair failure.
[21:48:17] Pete Resnick hangs head in shame
[21:48:49] dkg joins the room
[21:48:54] <mnot> Has anyone done a survey of 'updates' in existing RFCs to see how much it's been used in each sense?
[21:49:13] <RjS> Suresh did such a thing
[21:49:18] <mnot> Link?
[21:49:30] <RjS> the results are, of course, pretty subjective
[21:49:34] <mnot> :)
[21:49:36] <Rich Salz> excellent question to ask, @mnot
[21:49:51] <RjS> I don't know if it ended up in the public record - I saw it while on the I* in an early conversation about this
[21:49:53] Ted Lemon joins the room
[21:49:53] <mcr> even if subjective, knowing the extent of the confusion is good.
[21:49:59] <RjS> the conversation has been around for decades
[21:50:04] martin.duke leaves the room
[21:50:19] <francesca> Reminder: this is a dispatch wg, we are trying to know if there is interest in this work and if yes how to dispatch it
[21:50:19] <mnot> yes. If most RFCs use it in a particular way, we should align with that. If there's general chaos, we should probably define a new term.
[21:50:47] <sftcd> ISTM the extent of the debate about the confusion is more of a deal than the actual confusion (but I'm not sure this draft will fix that) - at least it felt like that while I was on the IESG
[21:50:58] <Seth Blank> UPDATES vs DEPRECATES?
[21:50:59] <RjS> jonathan: Both.
[21:51:05] <cabo> That is a bug of "MUST BE ZERO" stuff.
[21:51:31] <Ted.h> Looks like amends, because it moves the MUST to SHOULD, defining a criterion.
[21:51:35] <cabo> What is meant is "THIS IS AN EXTENSION POINT, AND FOR NOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE ZERO ON SEND AND IGNORED ON RECEIVE
[21:51:38] <mnot> Extends is what we have registries for
[21:51:40] <mcr> I'm widely enthusiastic about this document. I guess "Amends" sounds not strong enough if you are fixing a serious bug.
[21:51:43] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[21:51:44] <cabo> No, that would be an extend
[21:51:53] <brong> "Corrects"
[21:52:01] <brong> "Repairs"
[21:52:19] <cabo> Deprecating an old crypto algorithm isn't "correct", but "repair" would work.
[21:52:27] carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[21:52:36] <cabo> amend
verb
the government may amend the law: revise, alter, change, modify, qualify, adapt, adjust; edit, copyedit, rewrite, rescript, redraft, recast, rephrase, reword, rework, reform, update, revamp; correct, remedy, fix, set right, put right, repair, emend, improve, ameliorate, better, enhance, clarify.
[21:52:39] <dkg> "fixes"
[21:52:42] <sftcd> for old crypto repair wouldn't be right either
[21:52:56] <cabo> Well, it got broken and now needs to be repaired
[21:53:05] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> I hope we're not getting a DIEDIEDIE tag
[21:53:05] <sftcd> no, it now needs to be deprecated and not used
[21:53:20] <msk> "Further Obfuscates"
[21:53:28] <Jonathan Lennox> DIEDIEDIE can be Obsoletes:, no?   That's not going away
[21:53:31] <sftcd> I like the diediedie flag idea that Ben Kaduk is promoting! :-)
[21:53:34] <jhoyla> I'm a big fan of RFC 6919 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6919
[21:53:50] <dkg> msk: ha ha
[21:54:06] <mcr> if I clarify text that was confusing, but which results in no changes to bits on the wire for people who got the text correctly, then Amends feels right.  If I realize that in fact, both (all three?) interpretations were correct, and I have to fix the process so that I don't render old versions broken, then it's too weak.  It's what we like to have fixed before DS->IS, of course.  
[21:54:18] <Martin Thomson> I know how to do "See Also" it's called the References section.
[21:54:24] <mnot> ^^ this
[21:54:37] <RjS> @mcr: what is this DS of which you speak :)
[21:54:43] <cabo> The link goes the other way
[21:54:47] <brong> @mnot I assume this is for forward references onto old RFCs
[21:54:50] <Alexey Melnikov> Martin Thomson: References are static
[21:54:52] <mcr> Sorry, PS.
[21:54:56] <Jonathan Lennox> @RjS: It's an older portable Nintendo system
[21:54:57] Jari Arkko joins the room
[21:54:58] <Martin Thomson> cabo: by which you mean you would prefer the handle system?
[21:55:01] <ben@nostrum.com> @martin: are you going to add a reference to an existing RFC?
[21:55:18] <ben@nostrum.com> er,   _in_ an existing...
[21:55:19] <martin.duke> I am concerned that "Extended" and "See Also" are a recipe for bloat
[21:55:19] <Martin Thomson> I think we should allow that, yes.
[21:55:23] <cabo> We have metadata that we can change.  The body we can't change.
[21:55:27] <Pete Resnick> Current tools get you an "Updated by:" in the original RFC.
[21:55:30] Sean Turner joins the room
[21:55:33] <Pete Resnick> In the tools view.
[21:55:34] <martin.duke> I mean, RFC 793 would have like 2 pages of RFC numbers
[21:55:34] <adam> Martin: The notion is that "Updates" is **currently** being used for mostly "Amends" and "Extends," but in a quick survey, there are also uses that are... less scrutable. "See Also" is the pressure releif valve that allows this third thing to keep happening.
[21:55:39] <cabo> Of course, let's abuse "see also" to our hearts' content.
[21:55:45] <Martin Thomson> That we can't change the body is a rule we invented for ourselves.
[21:56:01] <Martin Thomson> I wonder if you can include text in "See Also"
[21:56:04] <jhoyla> If you have a mandatory AMENDS amendment to this RFC, does the mandatory change in meaning cascade to all RFCs that use it?
[21:56:14] <brong> keeping all the changes separate from the body seems sensible to me
[21:56:16] <cabo> martin.duke: What would be wrong with 2 pages of "see also"?
[21:56:17] <Seth Blank> +1 this is useful
[21:56:31] <Jonathan Lennox> @Martin: Can you include cross-site scripting attacks in "see also"?
[21:56:42] <Brian Carpenter> Useful? Yes, very good idea.
[21:56:44] dee3@jabb.im joins the room
[21:56:46] <Martin Thomson> Jonathan Lennox: absolutely.
[21:56:55] <ben@nostrum.com> So we need to "amend" every RFC that "updates" something :-)
[21:56:58] <adam> martin.duke: The hope here is that these would never be used except where "Updates" would have historically been used.
[21:56:59] <sureshk@jabber.org> @mt: we were only thinking of RFC numbers but I like the way you are thinking :-)
[21:57:00] <Pete Resnick> Anyone with "useful: -1" should get on the mic line.
[21:57:05] <lpardue> what tag would an editorial update to a document have?
[21:57:15] <Brian Carpenter> Deprecate updates immediately? Yes
[21:57:15] <Sean Turner> I tilted at this windmill years ago …
[21:57:26] <mcr> lpardue, I'm hearing that it would be Amends.
[21:57:27] <sftcd> this seems hbu
[21:57:35] <RjS> @adam: See also doesn't fit in that
[21:57:45] <ben@nostrum.com> @sean: windmills are cyclic
[21:57:51] <Klensin> @Sean: this windmill was tilted at long enough ago that Postel did it.
[21:57:51] <adam> Sean Turner: Yeah, I think anyone who has to authoritatively answer the question of "What does Updates Mean?" for years in a row comes to the conclusion that the answer is so poorly defined that we need to get rid of it.
[21:57:51] <Martin Thomson> I am all for updates.  To the text of RFCs.
[21:58:00] <John Levine> This draft seems like a band-aid where we need sutures.
[21:58:10] <sureshk@jabber.org> @mt: Amen to that.
[21:58:19] <adam> John Levine: I'd love to see your draft. :)
[21:58:19] <lpardue> that's a bit like reviewing someone's code and saying you add some fixups, but in fact you rewrote the whole thing
[21:58:23] <mcr> @John Levine: interesting.  
[21:58:31] mbaushke@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[21:58:32] Ted Lemon joins the room
[21:58:46] <Warren Kumari> @jck: +1
[21:58:51] <John Levine> If we can bring ourselves to think about new versions, a lot of these problems go away.
[21:58:54] <sftcd> @csperkins: you have a big Question? :-)
[21:59:01] <John Levine> new versions of RFC
[21:59:03] <Sean Turner> @adam please :)
[21:59:05] <Ted Lemon> “Best is the enemy of good enough.”
[21:59:17] <adam> NEWTRK was trying to boil several oceans simultaneously. I think we do better with teapot-sized situations.
[21:59:23] <Ted Lemon> :)
[21:59:24] <cabo> Martin Thomson: That would be the "software trap".  Ship the 737MAX first, fix the software later.
[21:59:31] <Amelia Andersdotter> well, maybe you could have consolidated versions?
[21:59:36] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> adam: 418
[21:59:37] xp29srs leaves the room
[21:59:37] <SM> cabo :-)
[21:59:37] <sftcd> I wonder how many people who are not on the IESG ever care about this issue?
[21:59:39] <csperkins> @sftcd No :-) Was going to say the IRSG has discussed, and support the IRTF stream aligning with IETF
[21:59:44] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[21:59:51] <John Levine> this isn't a bad idea and we can certanly do it
[21:59:59] <ekr@jabber.org> @JohnLevine++
[22:00:02] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:00:06] <Ted Lemon> I’m not on the IESG _now_.  Which category am I in?
[22:00:08] <Amelia Andersdotter> sftcd anyone who tries to implement a most up to date version
[22:00:11] <Martin Thomson> cabo: That trap becomes possible perhaps.  But it does not become automatic.
[22:00:11] <Ted Lemon> Agree, John.
[22:00:16] <ekr@jabber.org> @JohnLevine: I mean versions
[22:00:18] <John Levine> but it points out the basic problem that we need better ways to produce documents that collect the facts in one place
[22:00:19] <Alissa Cooper> If only we had some data about how people consume RFCs …
[22:00:19] Toerless Eckert joins the room
[22:00:23] <Alexey Melnikov> +1 to Mirja. IESG started with trying to fix Updates, but this didn't work out. This is the result of this.
[22:00:25] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @Amelia +1
[22:00:36] <cabo> Martin Thomson: That's where we see that I'm older than you :-)
[22:00:43] <ekr@jabber.org> @Alissa Cooper: Why don't you guys put some analytics on the RFC site
[22:00:58] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:01:06] <John Levine> @ekr which RFC site? There are at least three. That's one of the problems.
[22:01:09] <Martin Thomson> Move the text of the document to metadata?
[22:01:22] <mnot> brilliant.
[22:01:27] <sftcd> do your analytics work on rsync?
[22:01:32] <dkg> just publish the RFCs as WPACK bundles
[22:01:35] <brong> ekr: by anlytics do you mean "how often do people open them" or some kind of Snowcrash style "how fast do people page through"?
[22:01:36] <Jeffrey Yasskin> ekr@jabber.org: Google Analytics would be great for this. ;-)
[22:01:36] <Sean Turner> :)
[22:01:39] <Seth Blank> replace the entire RFC series with one giant Etherpad document?
[22:01:40] <ben@nostrum.com> It's part of the "updating" RFC
[22:01:40] <Alexey Melnikov> Each document is a new tag ;-)?
[22:01:48] <John Levine> @sftcd no, but we can count them
[22:01:50] <Rich Salz> anyone else getting massive echo's or is it just me?
[22:01:51] <ekr@jabber.org> @brong: I was thinking eyeball tracking
[22:01:53] dhruvdhody joins the room
[22:01:57] <Ted Lemon> Just you.
[22:02:00] <Amelia Andersdotter> @rich not getting echos
[22:02:01] <SM> Rich, audio is fine
[22:02:01] <joehall> just you
[22:02:05] <mcr> small echo from Suresh.
[22:02:08] <brong> ekr: we urgently need some kind of brain scanning thing
[22:02:09] <sftcd> @rich: audio is good now, probably 'till you unmute at least:-)
[22:02:17] <mnot> haha
[22:02:18] <brong> let's pause all work until we get that done
[22:02:20] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @brong lol
[22:02:21] <dkg> rich just you (you (you (you (you))))
[22:02:28] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> "something you can rip off the RFC" sounds like the band-aid analogy
coming back.
[22:02:31] <adam> "Will you allow www.ietf.org <http://www.ietf.org> to use your camera?"
[22:02:46] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @adam XD
[22:02:55] <jon-ietf> rfc's considered harmful
[22:02:58] <ben@nostrum.com> I must admit to AD nostalgia with this conversation
[22:03:00] <brong> adam: we should be like politicians, put in an exception to the privacy policy such that ietf.org can always use the camera without asking
[22:03:02] <dkg> "no RFC until you can prove that it is valid for all time"
[22:03:08] <RjS> @spencer: that only fixes a corner of the problem. The time loss will just move to arguing about what the metadata should say.
[22:03:19] <Pete Resnick> @spencer: So you're suggesting keep text in the body of the RFC that says what it does to other RFCs, but then have metadata in the tracker that deals with this?
[22:03:22] <dkg> that would cut down on expenses related to document production
[22:03:47] <sureshk@jabber.org> I think have joined the B-A room by mistake :-)
[22:03:53] <wseltzer> the safe distance for this metadata is 6' away
[22:04:09] <Rich Salz> thanks.  i will try to figure out what's wrong. :(
[22:04:22] <sftcd> this is a harmless but useless improvement is my conclusion
[22:04:34] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Excellent usage of the three-way handshake protcol, Mohit!
[22:04:51] <cabo> I think the presumption here is that we don't give up immutable RFCs, we are just adding link relation types
[22:05:01] <mcr> @toerless, you are private chatting with me, but my replies are "403"
[22:05:02] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:05:04] <msk> @sureshk: I was just going to say that.
[22:05:12] <adam> "Obsoleted by" means "DO NOT USE. THIS DOCUMENT IS DEAD."
[22:05:16] <Rich Salz> webex signed me in twice :(
[22:05:17] <ekr@jabber.org> sftcd: I think for the first time I may agree with JCK that this will lead to 3x more hairsplitting
[22:05:18] <msk> kaduk++
[22:05:19] <ben@nostrum.com> I argued way back that any RFC that touches (regardless of the tag) a previous RFC should say how and why. I"m not clear on why that doesn't work.
[22:05:21] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> link relations, like
https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml ?
[22:05:24] <adam> "Amended by" does not.
[22:05:25] <Klensin> @stfcd: harmless iff we can prevent people from applying a tag and then misrepresenting it in marketing efforts.  Our success record with things like that has not been great.
[22:05:37] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:05:41] <Klensin> @ben: yep.
[22:05:49] <cabo> kaduk@jabber.org: yes
[22:06:02] <mcr> ben: that's a good thing, but we need the metatag so that the original document can forward reference when rendered.
[22:06:06] <spencerdawkins> @RjS - you may be right :-)
[22:06:17] <mcr> (ben@nostrum.com).
[22:06:23] <Warren Kumari> @sftcd: I'm not convinced it is harmless - we have a long term series, poking at it unnecessarily seems bad. I might be in the "damn kids, git off mah document series" camp.
[22:06:25] <ben@nostrum.com> @mcr: I wasn't disasgreeing with that.
[22:06:28] <Alexey Melnikov> Transitive closures on tags. Fun
[22:06:55] <ben@nostrum.com> I just think that the _reasons_ to use a tag may be so varied that you need to explain one way or another
[22:07:07] <adam> Warren Kumari: I think the fact that we've known that "Updates" is not up to its purported tasks since Jon was the RFC Editor says a lot about whether it's worth keeping for the sake of tradition.
[22:07:12] <Cullen Jennings> FWIW … I don't think obslete means what he just said
[22:07:28] <RjS> serious question: should the datatracker follow extends or see also when showing related documents for an IPR disclosure
[22:07:31] joehall leaves the room: Replaced by new connection
[22:07:32] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:07:33] <mcr> ben@nostrum: so we'd always use Updates and always state things? or you would still want more metatags?
[22:07:34] <Klensin> @Suresh: but we continue to allow normative references to obsoleted documents, which makes them less than "dead"
[22:07:35] <spencerdawkins> @Pete - no, I meant pull it all out of the text for new RFCs - metadata only. And yes, that is headed toward Newtrk ISDs, 15 years later (so better supporting technology).
[22:07:41] <Brian Carpenter> Right, 'see also' must be curated
[22:07:41] <Martin Thomson> TLS 1.2 is obsolete.
[22:07:50] <ekr@jabber.org> and yet widely used!
[22:07:53] m&m leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[22:07:54] <adam> RjS: From a tools perspective, I think all three of these would be treated identical to "Updates"
[22:07:54] m&m joins the room
[22:07:58] <adam> The distinction is to help humans.
[22:08:01] <Alexey Melnikov> RjS: some people asked for that
[22:08:03] <Jonathan Lennox> And probably should still be implemented!
[22:08:03] <Rich Salz> TLS 1.2 is fine.  Maybe not the coolest bestest thing but it's fine.
[22:08:04] <sftcd> process experiment: how about we only consider the opinions of people who've never been on the IESG/IAB when handling this? :-)
[22:08:05] John Levine joins the room
[22:08:05] <ben@nostrum.com> @mcr: that.
[22:08:06] <lpardue> I'm reminded a bit of https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver/files/938847862/938847863/1/1507216097370/issue_linking.png
[22:08:06] nemo joins the room
[22:08:14] <ekr@jabber.org> @sftcd: you first
[22:08:15] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:08:21] <ben@nostrum.com> But even if we add new tags, we will still need to explain
[22:08:33] <adam> sftcd: o.O
[22:08:43] John Levine leaves the room
[22:08:47] <ben@nostrum.com> But RjS brings up an interesting point, in that the datatracker may need to do things based on the tag
[22:08:49] Russ Housley joins the room
[22:09:10] <adam> sftcd: Not sure why you want to discard the perspective of the folks who have had to deal with being in the trenches of this issue...
[22:09:11] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:09:15] <sureshk@jabber.org> @jck: point taken about the references.
[22:09:23] <mcr> could the IESG delegate this to the sponsoring AD and Shepherd write-up, and maybe the WG chairs/AD and Shephed could have a conversation when the document goes forward?
[22:09:30] <John Levine> it will definitely require tool work
[22:09:52] <francesca> Sorry people in the queue: we won't be able to get all the comments in :(
[22:09:59] <ben@nostrum.com> @mcr: I suspect it is rare that a shepherd writeup is ever read after RFC publication
[22:10:00] <sftcd> @adam: I was kidding, but had I not been kidding, I'd say because I never cared at all about any of this until I got on the IESG (and I've gotten better at not caring again since I left the IESG:-)
[22:10:00] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:10:20] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:10:21] <Cullen Jennings> +1 on See Also and Reference
[22:10:30] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> "See Also" is a reverse reference: existing document X should have a
reference to the thing being published now
[22:10:33] <Alexey Melnikov> I happen to agree with mnot, but the reality is that not everybody agrees with such interpretation
[22:10:42] <adam> sftcd: Yep. This is deep process wonkery, and really only deep process wonks are going to care very much. :)
[22:10:47] <Warren Kumari> @Adam: I will fully agree it is tradition, but we already have fights on PS / BCP / Experimental / Info , and I don't want to spend more time hairsplitting between Amends and Extended… The fact that we've tried solving this a number of times, and are still here might mean that we canot easily fix it.
[22:10:48] <Jonathan Lennox> The U.S. Constitution, and the IETF.
[22:10:50] <Seth Blank> +1 to updated in place -- even though I realize that's a monumental task
[22:10:50] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:10:51] <mcr> ben, I'm saying that rather than having the IESG argue about the tags, that this argument occur earlier, with the WG.
[22:10:54] <Jeffrey Yasskin> mnot brings the WHATWG to the IETF.
[22:11:01] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> FWIW, as someone who's been looking at RFCs only on the order of several months, the "updates" tag has never been a source of confusion for me.
[22:11:05] <Russ Housley> 1 on See Also; just stick with references
[22:11:06] <RjS> I took myself out of the queue: The point I wanted to raise was that if this is going to really be useful, get the argument _out of the IESG_.
[22:11:17] <Pete Resnick> Sounds like Mark is suggesting something similar to Spencer.
[22:11:21] Steve Todd joins the room
[22:11:27] <Brian Carpenter> See Also already exists in the RFC Index, and it is intended to generate a *mutual* citation between an old and new RFC.
[22:11:29] wseltzer sends mnot some leaflets to be backfilled into paper binders of legislative text
[22:11:29] <mbaushke@jabber.hot-chilli.net> I was late to this session, is there a use case for "see also" to have a 'standards track' rfc to be informed or change an informational rfc? That is, do we get into the normative vs informative issues here with that kind of tag?
[22:11:36] <ekr@jabber.org> What would be really useful getting this out of the IESG would be getting rid of the tags entirely!
[22:11:37] <ben@nostrum.com> @mcr: well, that _should_ already happen. Sometimes it even does.
[22:11:38] <RjS> make a WG, and make it build some guidance so the arguments happen outside of telechats.
[22:11:57] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @ekr Is that sarcastic, or...?
[22:12:01] <RjS> ekr: sure.
[22:12:08] <ekr@jabber.org> @carrick:no, they're dumb
[22:12:12] <Jonathan Lennox> RjS: figuring out how to dispatch a problem in a dispatch group, rather than arguing about the problem itself? Is that allowed?
[22:12:18] <mcr> ben, so it's not happening, and I'd like the IESG to push back on ADs bringing documents forward without write ups that address this.
[22:12:19] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @ekr Really? I find them helpful.
[22:12:20] <Brian Carpenter> @mbaushke, no, it's clearly an Informational reference but in metadata
[22:12:23] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:12:34] <Klensin> @Ben: that was part of my point.   We need to keep the relationship explanations no matter what we do about tags/keywords.   But some of our experience has been that, even with "updates" we get documents that say "this updates RFC 9999 followed by a sentence of handwaving.  There is a chance that having this will cause people to feel that they've done their jubs by adding the right metadata, in which case things get worse.  Otherwise, if we really enforce the explanations _and_ start generating A/S documents when needed, this is, at worst, harmless.
[22:12:35] <ekr@jabber.org> what would be useful would be, as Mark says, just update the docs in place
[22:12:49] <mbaushke@jabber.hot-chilli.net> what is the URL for the bluesheet?
[22:12:51] <mcr> so, maybe ekr is right.  Normative references already create forward references.
[22:12:55] <mcr> (in the metadata)
[22:12:56] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:13:11] <Jeffrey Yasskin> Since this is a dispatch group, is it going to dispatch the work somewhere?
[22:13:16] <spencerdawkins> If we're talking about not doing bandaids, it's time to pull NewTrk ISDs out of the dusters. That gives you better than a growing tree of docs that might be related in some way, which is what we've got now.
[22:13:19] <msk> The definitions of "updates" and "obsoletes" were in 2223, but 7322 obsoleted that one, without including the definition of either term.
[22:13:23] <Brian Carpenter> Blue sheet is at the end of https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-gendispatch
[22:13:37] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:13:42] <ben@nostrum.com> Yay, RFCDISPATCH!
[22:14:11] <mbaushke@jabber.hot-chilli.net> thank you Brian
[22:14:20] <ben@nostrum.com> (need dispatch-dispatch to sort out all the dispatches)
[22:14:22] stefans joins the room
[22:14:38] <sftcd> maybe we can send this to whatwgdispatch?
[22:14:41] <Barry Leiba> Nooooo
[22:14:42] <mcr> okay, so I'd like to have a virtual interim (virtual BOF) scheduled because I think we need high-bandwidth discussion, particularly among those who have strong opinions.
[22:14:44] <Barry Leiba> Working group
[22:14:47] <Jonathan Lennox> Short != noncontroversial
[22:14:56] <Martin Thomson> Needs more bake time
[22:14:57] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> "short document" and "okay to AD sponsor" are not equivalent
[22:15:01] <Barry Leiba> Short document, but lots of concern and broad applicability.
[22:15:08] <Sean Turner> I tilted after Robert tilted on it ;)
[22:15:08] <Klensin> shortness has nothing to do with it,  this is a major process change with some risks.   Needs a WG, not AD sponsorship.
[22:15:10] <msk> +1 to a WG
[22:15:13] <Barry Leiba> NOT AD-sponsored.  NOT NOT NOT
[22:15:14] <msk> translation: NOT IT
[22:15:21] joehall joins the room
[22:15:27] <adam> + many to Barry
[22:15:40] <Martin Thomson> Barry is absolutely right about IESG rule-making
[22:15:43] <Joel Halpern> There is enough controversy here taht it needs more discussion by the community somewwhere.  (ANd this even though I had thought this was a simple and easy step.  Clearly, it is not.)
[22:15:56] <ben@nostrum.com> +1 WG. +1 "AD-sponsored.  NOT NOT NOT"
[22:16:08] <ben@nostrum.com> er. "NO…"
[22:16:16] <Martin Thomson> I might say +1 on just NO.
[22:16:25] <brong> :NO:
[22:16:34] <ekr@jabber.org> I mean, my argument here is "no"
[22:16:38] <mnot> No - fix the bigger problem, don't spin up a WG for bandaids
[22:16:45] <msk> "no" as in "don't change anything"?"
[22:16:47] <RjS> I think the best tool to figure out whether this would help is a document full of examples
[22:16:50] <mcr> yeah, I don't want a charter debate.  But, I want larger community discussion that a "WG" would enable.
[22:16:51] Larry joins the room
[22:16:56] <RjS> built on real things that have already gone through
[22:17:02] <ekr@jabber.org> Especially now that we have a whole RFC Editor Future Development thingy
[22:17:07] <ekr@jabber.org> "no" as in don't make this change
[22:17:09] <mnot> Define a new type of RFC that patches an existing one.
[22:17:10] <Jonathan Lennox> "There are many problems harder to solve than this one, and this one is impossible to solve."
[22:17:11] <Alexey Melnikov> mnot: what is the proper solution? Mutable RFCs?
[22:17:15] <mnot> YES
[22:17:25] <mcr> I wonder if we could get consensus to just stop using Updates: for now.
[22:17:29] sginoza joins the room
[22:17:33] <sftcd> the mood of the jabber room seems to have changed in the last n lines
[22:17:34] <James Gruessing> Versioned RFCs, anybody?
[22:17:35] <Joel Halpern> No, pleas,e NOT MUTABLE RFCs.
[22:17:42] <Alexey Melnikov> mnot: I am Ok with that, I will see you in 30 years ;-)
[22:17:47] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Barry: quadruple-NOT is a positive, right?
[22:17:55] <Brian Carpenter> The IETF can't decide to make RFCs mutable. It's an RFC Editor policy matter.
[22:18:00] rwilton joins the room
[22:18:01] <Jonathan Lennox> Just put every new RFC in cluster 238, and don't publish any of them.
[22:18:03] <ben@nostrum.com> @Ben: depends on your language
[22:18:04] <mbaushke@jabber.hot-chilli.net> Mutable RFCs are wrong. Just say no.
[22:18:06] <hta> Living Standards! "Standards are like water - they're much easier to stand on when they're frozen"
[22:18:16] <brong> Every problem can be solved with an additional layer of abstraction
[22:18:18] <mnot> Maybe we should stop using RFC numbers and focus on titles
[22:18:20] <Barry Leiba> Ben: "NOT" is additive.
[22:18:20] <ekr@jabber.org> Well, fortunately, we have a whole process for the RFC Editor future
[22:18:20] <Joel Halpern> Until we get some other metadata that is usable, we essentially have to retain and use "UPDATES".
[22:18:31] <Alexey Melnikov> I am enjoying the variety of opinions :-D
[22:18:32] <Jonathan Lennox> @brong: except inefficiency, which can be solved by removing a layer of abstraction
[22:18:35] otroan@hanazo.no joins the room
[22:18:43] <adrianfarrel> Ooooh, this problem updates the last problem?
[22:18:45] <ben@nostrum.com> I personally have a variety of opinions
[22:18:56] <adam> I'm going to reiterate that, given free reign, the IETF will try to boil all the oceans on this topic, and that will fail. Again.
[22:18:58] <mnot> @adrianfarrel I LOLed.
[22:19:01] <spencerdawkins> I'd be OK punting Updates as a tag or as metadata and including a description of relationships between docs in RFC texts.
[22:19:02] <adam> This needs to be constrained.
[22:19:22] <sureshk@jabber.org> I was busy on Webex but a +1 from me for update in place
[22:19:24] otroan@hanazo.no leaves the room: Disconnected: Received SIGINT
[22:19:27] <Alexey Melnikov> adam: I agree
[22:19:28] <mnot> We should just stop issuing RFC numbers at 9999; afterwards, refer to the spec by its name.
[22:19:39] <msk> hash numbers
[22:19:40] <ben@nostrum.com> speakers mike is saturated
[22:19:41] otroan@hanazo.no joins the room
[22:19:41] otroan@hanazo.no leaves the room
[22:19:45] <cabo> Why can't Webex have some audio feedback so Brian sees that he is clipping?
[22:19:48] <RjS> @adam: sure, but your risk is that the next IESG just kicks over whatever the constrained group decides.
[22:19:52] <spencerdawkins> @mnot - that was ALSO in NewTrk. Seriously.
[22:19:53] <mnot> not clipping here (just)
[22:19:56] <adam> draft-ietf-foo-bar-baz-final.html
[22:20:00] <brong> it's loud though
[22:20:00] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:20:08] <mcr> cabo, why can't we have open standards for meetings, so that we can have competition in client programs :-(
[22:20:17] <Jonathan Lennox> Just remove the "draft-" prefix and call it "ietf-"
[22:20:18] <adam> RjS: I mean, that's a risk for all documented process, right?
[22:20:30] <spencerdawkins> 107, 108, and 109 would be my bet ...
[22:20:34] <brong> adam:draft-ietf-foo-bar-baz-UPDATED.FINAL2.xhtml
[22:20:36] <Warren Kumari> We seriously need to discuss what the *actual* problem we are solving is, not "we have sniny new stuff, lets use that…"
[22:20:51] <adam> brong: (I was working towards that joke. :) )
[22:20:56] <mcr> :draft-ietf-foo-bar-baz-UPDATED.FINAL2-Amended20200204.xhtml
[22:21:00] <adrianfarrel> See, even Brian is doing an update
[22:21:01] <adam> (You beat me to it.)
[22:21:02] <Klensin> @Warren: +1
[22:21:08] <RjS> @adam: yeees, but there's baseline risk and glaringly obvious high risk
[22:21:20] <francesca> If you haven't yet please SIGN THE BLUESHEET https://etherpad.ietf.org:9009/p/notes-ietf-107-gendispatch
[22:21:34] <msk> @brian carpenter: In case it's helpful, I took a run at this a few years ago but interest died down: draft-kucherawy-nomcom-procexp-01
[22:21:35] <francesca> (loud for the people in the back)
[22:21:39] <adam> RjS: Maybe I'm too close right now to see the obvious risk here
[22:21:40] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:21:42] <mcr> (and if port 9009 is a problem, you can use port-443, but it might overload and fail)
[22:21:50] <adam> mcr: I could not get that to work
[22:21:51] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> "run a script from existing data" why does it have to be existing
data?  Or "existing when the script runs?"
[22:21:54] <Warren Kumari> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc10  - this still works. http://www.geocities.com/nayanmars this does not.
[22:22:06] <sureshk@jabber.org> RFCXXXX-12347606f85d8960fa1640d0881682a081ffa9d0
[22:22:12] <sftcd> @ben: the point is really about not requiring judgement from secretariat
[22:22:25] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:22:33] <mcr> adam, port -443 access to etherpad worked for me, probably over IPv6.
[22:22:41] <adam> RFC3261(2023).txt
[22:22:41] <cabo> Oh, more honorary authors then.
[22:22:44] <Jonathan Lennox> "active draft reviewing" sounds like a judgment call to me
[22:22:51] <mnot> Or transition from RFC numbers to a short name in a registry
[22:22:56] <mcr> (nope it was v4)
[22:22:59] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:23:09] <jhoyla> Is there an element of "you get what you measure" i.e. people will try and game the metrics?
[22:23:12] <brong> it should be a UUID-v6
[22:23:12] otroan@hanazo.no joins the room
[22:23:14] <mnot> RFC-HTTP
[22:23:14] <Joel Halpern> Ben Kaduk - the other point is that developing agreement on new data to collect, and then tooling to collect it, and then time to actually collect it, takes us outside of the window the proposal is trying to affect.
[22:23:21] fhartung@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[22:23:22] <lpardue> is Github streak in scope?
[22:23:33] <sftcd> @lennox: a number of people have said that and I agree myself (recall: the draft text is strill strawmanish)
[22:23:33] <mnot> +1 to lpardue
[22:23:45] <Martin Thomson> GitHub streak is the worst incentive system ever
[22:23:51] <sureshk@jabber.org> @Joel, isn't this for the next Nomcom cycle, not the current one?
[22:23:52] <carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net> @lpardue: lol
[22:24:02] <mnot> only if your heatmap is an approximation of the IETF logo
[22:24:12] <mcr> @Joel Halpern, we only need to measure Nomcom eligibility once a year.  We could run the criteria in the draft manually once in six/ten weeks.
[22:24:17] <adam> It seems to me that the question of "who is involved enough to be qualified to select leaders" is necessarily the same as "who is involved enough to be qualified to remove leaders."
[22:24:24] <mcr> We'd need to do that anyway to validate the code.
[22:24:25] <Joel Halpern> @Suresh - yes, it is for the next nomcom.  Which means it has to be fully actionable by next spring.
[22:24:26] <lpardue> ok ok, not streak but how about .md SLOC
[22:24:38] <adam> So regardless of what we answer here, I don't think we should separate those
[22:24:47] <mnot> @lpardue: why do you hate XML?    Oh, right.
[22:24:51] <ekr@jabber.org> lpardue: you might be interested in https://lipsum.com/
[22:24:58] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Joel: good point
[22:25:01] <sftcd> my goal for today is to find out if people think we could get a version of this done before 108
[22:25:10] <Martin Thomson> ekr: http://txtrdr.com/boganipsum/
[22:25:11] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:25:20] <jhoyla> @lapardue gratuitous referencing of all past RFCs@
[22:25:27] <mnot> See Also: ...
[22:25:28] <Joel Halpern> Personally, I would find it unfortunate for github formal requests to count, but email feedback not to count.  And I do not want people trying to harvest "how much value" out of email comments.
[22:25:31] <Pete Resnick> Without hat: We have spun up WGs at high speed before. Probably shouldn't make timing cause us to go to AD sponsored.
[22:25:31] <Barry Leiba> We don't have to sort this out until a year from now.  It's not a rush, and we shouldn't rush it.
[22:25:53] <sureshk@jabber.org> @Joel: agree
[22:25:55] <Bernie Hoeneisen> should the next NomCom not be determined _before_ IETF-108?
[22:25:56] <Alissa Cooper> Just so I understand, why do people want it done before 108, if the new criteria don't have a time bound associated with them?
[22:26:02] <sftcd> @Barry: I don't understand your logic there
[22:26:05] <ekr@jabber.org> I agree that github shouldn't count
[22:26:05] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:26:22] <Barry Leiba> We can't possibly get this done before *this* NomCom is formed.
[22:26:28] <Barry Leiba> That gives us a year.
[22:26:39] <sftcd> yeah but eligibility is being established or lost all the time
[22:26:41] <Bernie Hoeneisen> @Barry: I have the same thought
[22:27:01] kiran.ietf joins the room
[22:27:28] <sftcd> @Ted: I do agree we need to measure the effect before we're done, we didn't do that yet
[22:27:36] <brong> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_point_check - it's a good model
[22:27:49] jmh joins the room
[22:27:55] <jmh> @Barry - I agree.  I was assuming it could not affect this coming nomcom.  I just know how long it takes to get agreement in principle, tooling, and useful data.  Which constrains what I think we can do for next year.
[22:28:08] <mcr> This year's pool will not change by this action, but given tooling and consensus process, if we don't start now, then it will be a problem for 2021, and the remote eligibility is a major pain.
[22:28:13] <ekr@jabber.org> I don't need to be in the queue, but I don't think reviewing should count.
[22:28:25] <sftcd> @ekr: you are not alone:-)
[22:28:37] <RjS> ekr - even directorate reviewing?
[22:28:38] <jhoyla> It sounds like the proposed British system too.
[22:28:40] <Barry Leiba> mcr: yes, we need to START now.  We don't need to hurry up and AD-sponsor it.
[22:28:45] <ekr@jabber.org> RjS: yes, even directorate reviewing
[22:28:51] <Jonathan Lennox> It seems to me like we should avoid criteria which are cheap to game.
[22:29:00] <sftcd> @RjS: feedback so far is very against counting directorate reviewing
[22:29:00] <ekr@jabber.org> The quality is widely variable and it creates bad incentives
[22:29:01] <Larry> appear in the acknowledgment of a working group draft
[22:29:06] Steve Todd leaves the room
[22:29:17] <brong> reviewing a document could be worth 10/100 points, and you can only count it once
[22:29:27] Joel Halpern leaves the room
[22:29:29] <mcr> I think that we should concern ourselves about gaming, but we should recognize that this is not a critical as, say, citizenship.
[22:29:32] <Seth Blank> +1 to counting work on official working group drafts
[22:29:33] <brong> so it's not worth heaps, but it can help someone who is missing a primary document
[22:29:33] <sureshk@jabber.org> @ekr: +1
[22:29:36] <mnot> posting to ietf@ would be 1 point, and you could only claim it once
[22:29:37] <ekr@jabber.org> maybe 7.8 out of 100 points
[22:29:40] <sureshk@jabber.org> Reviews are highly variable
[22:29:43] <jmh> Not sure why it says I left the room.  And told me so.
[22:29:47] <ekr@jabber.org> @mnot: posting to ietf@ is -1 points!
[22:29:51] <mnot> sold
[22:29:52] <Klensin> @adam: the problem with "qualified to select" == "qualified to remove" is there are big fairness issues if someone who is negatively affected by a pattern of behavior is not in a position to seek remedies.   For things that are in scope for the ombudsteam, we impose no such restrictions.  Similarly for the recently-announced LLC whistleblower plan.    But, for problems that don't fall into either of those scopes, the recall mechanism may be the only plausible action -- and trying to organize a petition without being able to to sign it and/or walking the halls of a meeting is sufficiently difficult and unrealistic to constitute disenfranchizement.
[22:29:54] <Martin Thomson> posting to ietf@ should *consume* points
[22:30:01] <brong> @ekr: -1 points and you get one per post!
[22:30:02] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:30:06] <ekr@jabber.org> @brong: exactly
[22:30:21] <Seth Blank> what does being the recipient of an IESG DISCUSS cost you?
[22:30:22] <Warren Kumari> @brong: Yes, but it's 40 points for "Document issued by authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs)" and only 35 for "A document held by the cash dealer giving security over the signatory’s property" — I think that this should be 39 and 36 (we could spend huge amounts of time fighting about the number of points…)
[22:30:31] <sftcd> 100 point systems seem like it'd be hard for secretariat or else for volunteer? but I'd be interested in a worked out proposal to map something like that to IETF (while doubting it'd work TBH)
[22:30:46] <Pete Resnick> Circling back to Barry's comment: When is the next NomCom chosen?
[22:30:59] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Please don't incentivize a market in IESG DISCUSSes; there are too
many as it is
[22:31:01] <brong> sftcd: why?  You would provide your own evidence when applying for NOMCOM
[22:31:02] <dkg> isn't part of the concern that we don't have a lot of suckers^Wvolunteers for nomcom in the first place?
[22:31:04] <Barry Leiba> Solicitations should go out in May-ish.
[22:31:05] <SM> Pete, Second meeting of the year
[22:31:05] <mcr> Pete, volunteer collection will start in about 6-8 weeks.
[22:31:11] <brong> secretariat just confirms providence
[22:31:13] <mcr> selection around July 1.
[22:31:13] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:31:14] <jmh> Technically, we are in the process of choosing a nomcom.  The one after that will be chosen next late-spring / summer.
[22:31:19] <sftcd> @brong: if we make it hard for volunteer, then they won't
[22:31:25] <Warren Kumari> … and be caseful that the incentives we choose are measurable, and don't just add noise...
[22:31:31] <cabo> If noncom eligibility were important, that would look soon like how bibliometrics corrupted research
[22:31:32] <sureshk@jabber.org> @dkg: the problem is the lack of qualified volunteers
[22:31:36] <Warren Kumari> Yes, that!
[22:31:46] <Sean Turner> +1 to Cullen
[22:31:54] <mnot> +1 to Cullen
[22:31:56] <Bernie Hoeneisen> +1 to Cullen
[22:31:58] <aretana> +1 Cullen
[22:32:10] <spencerdawkins> So, yes, but what SHOULD the criteria be?
[22:32:12] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:32:17] <Barry Leiba> Anything can be gamed, but let's not make it too EASY.
[22:32:21] <Jonathan Lennox> Anything can be gamed, but attending in person is *expensive* to game.
[22:32:23] <jmh> @Spencer - that is the question I would like to hear about.
[22:32:25] <Klensin> Agree with Cullen to the degree that some of these paths are non-starters, but that gets to spencer's question
[22:32:33] <sftcd> reminder: the current situation is gamed already against those who don't travel
[22:32:33] <mcr> I will note that the sandbox database tracker has pretty much all the data that can be measured....
[22:32:35] <Jonathan Lennox> Ideally we'd have criteria which are similarly hard.
[22:32:35] <Bernie Hoeneisen> we need to consider misuse of eligibility criteria (as Cullen stated)
[22:32:42] <Warren Kumari> I really really like Brian's idea, and I cannot think of anything better — but we have to be careful iwth it..
[22:32:55] <sftcd> @warren: i agree wrt care being needed
[22:32:58] <Klensin> @Warren 1
[22:33:09] <Klensin> s/1/+1/
[22:33:14] <spencerdawkins> If we ever have another meeting :-)
[22:33:24] <ekr@jabber.org> Maybe we could require you to find a message st SHA-256(Your name || R)  has 80 trailing 0s!
[22:33:36] <sftcd> Lucy is the 2nd ex-nomcom chair to say that I think, interesting
[22:33:38] <Warren Kumari> @EKR: Oooooh! I like it!
[22:33:41] <msk> +1 to Warren
[22:33:58] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:33:59] <Mirja> spencer being pessimistic …? Oh noooo
[22:34:16] <Klensin> @Lucy:  Regardless of what we do, and especially if 108 and/or 109 go away, we are going to need to rethink how the nomcom does business.
[22:34:26] <mcr> sftd, am I the first? or is there a third?
[22:34:28] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:34:34] <spencerdawkins> @stephen, Russ put together an ex-Nomcom Chair design team to brainstorm (I was their scribe). I'd LOVE to see that happen.
[22:34:43] <martin.duke> some of these can be gamed, but attending 3 IETF's isn't exactly bulletproof
[22:34:45] <sftcd> @mcr: you were 1st to say that
[22:34:55] <sureshk@jabber.org> @spencer: there is
[22:35:05] <sureshk@jabber.org> Scott Mansfield is doing something in this space
[22:35:05] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:35:07] <Warren Kumari> There is also the "don't let a good crisis go to waste" — we've been kinda discussing this for many years, but not making much progress. Perhaps we can use this to make progress on the disenfranchised remote people.
[22:35:08] <adrianfarrel> Haven't ex Nomcom chairs suffered enough?
[22:35:19] <lpardue> as someone that's never been on the NomCon, I still don't know why I'd want to be on the NomCon, let alone if I'm allowed
[22:35:20] sfuerst leaves the room
[22:35:23] <Larry> there's a process hack: submit the announcement for nomcom solicitation today or tomorrow. Then 107 wouldn't count because the 107 hasn't closed
[22:35:25] <sftcd> @spencer: that mcr and lucy said the same thing is interesting, but the thing they said is not something for this draft really
[22:35:35] <ekr@jabber.org> @lpardue: nomcom is basically jury duty
[22:35:49] <lpardue> ok, who volunteers for jury duty?
[22:35:52] <sureshk@jabber.org> @lpardue: the party line is "it is an enlightening experience"
[22:35:55] <sftcd> I strongly agree with Warren's last - we have a chance now to fix a bit of brokenness so let's do it
[22:35:57] <mcr> @lpardue, you might not care.
[22:36:04] <Warren Kumari> So, we shouldn't panic, but we also shouldn't forget it again…
[22:36:10] <Rich Salz> You've said that before, Larry, it didn't get much traction.  Wonder why?
[22:36:14] <sureshk@jabber.org> My line is "if nobody does it we will get shitty leaders"
[22:36:18] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:36:28] Russ Housley leaves the room
[22:36:37] <Klensin> @Larry: I think the nomcom chair has to nominally issue that call.   So, unless Andrew does something in the next 24-48 hours ....
[22:36:45] John Levine leaves the room
[22:36:56] <Mirja> @lpardue did we convince you yet to put your name in?
[22:36:59] John Levine joins the room
[22:37:05] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:37:14] <mcr> @sftcd, the larger issue is whether we want to en-franchise a contributor who is always remote, and therefore would NOT travel for November interview meeting.  
[22:37:27] Russ Housley joins the room
[22:37:33] <Warren Kumari> @Suresh: Yes… but also, even the best nomcom cannot appoint good people if the slate only contains shitty people. This is only tangentially related, but....
[22:37:39] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Tracking jabber and audio makes my head hurt; what's the point that
lucy and mcr both made?
[22:37:44] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:37:47] <lpardue> @mirja I think I'd fail the acceptance criteria
[22:37:49] <sureshk@jabber.org> @warren: Touché
[22:38:10] <jhoyla> @lpardue as in you'd fail to accept the nomination?
[22:38:14] <sureshk@jabber.org> @lpardue: I will give you some brownie points for the nice job with masque
[22:38:20] <Rich Salz> How can we declare 107 cancelled yet install new AD's at the same time?
[22:38:20] <Warren Kumari> Ooooh, fancy, you have a squiggle on the the 'e'. You win...
[22:38:21] <mcr> wow, if only one could get an RFC published in 12 months :-)
[22:38:28] <hta> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview MAY get published in 2020.....
[22:38:29] <msk> @Warren: I can hear you, dude.
[22:38:30] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:38:31] <francesca> in CBOR we can
[22:38:39] <Jeffrey Yasskin> Judging citizenship by the ability to pay $2400 every other year seems like a bad idea. It's true that participation-based bars can also be gamed, but that doesn't inherently make them worse.
[22:38:42] <brong> Just be a good IETF citizen and the rules will fit you
[22:38:42] mit-hat@jabber.hot-chilli.net joins the room
[22:38:44] <Sean Turner> @hta - do not hold your breath :)
[22:38:50] <RjS> (anecdote for the question about who would have been become eligible in the 3 or 5 if 107 had been physical: at least me. (Although I would not be eligible for other reasons).)
[22:38:53] <mcr> @Rich, yeah. I think that IETF107 happened, but I think that *ALL* of us didn't attend, and lose a "mark"
[22:38:56] <Jonathan Lennox> "Must have an RFC in MISSREF."
[22:38:58] <mcr> (many disagree with me)
[22:39:04] <hta> @sean - if I did I'd alredy be dead :-)
[22:39:06] <Brian Carpenter> Jon: ;-)
[22:39:23] <Klensin> @brong: good citizen with good support for attending a significant majority of meetings.
[22:39:36] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:39:40] <Mirja> @rich, because if you don't exchange the ADs now they will just run away…
[22:39:41] <brong> yeah, totally
[22:39:45] <Martin Thomson> elligibility-discuss@ is a fine venue
[22:39:49] <msk> +1
[22:39:49] <Ted Lemon> agree
[22:39:54] <brong> I didn't put enough sarcasm tags on it
[22:39:58] <jhoyla> What, if anything, needs to happen in the short term.
[22:40:05] <Warren Kumari> A strong suggestion for people who care to join the eligibility-discuss list….
[22:40:18] <mnot> we are now 10 seconds over time...
[22:40:18] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:40:25] <Ted Lemon> oh noes!
[22:40:31] <Jonathan Lennox> If there aren't cookies I don't care about going over time
[22:40:39] carrickdb@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[22:40:40] <Warren Kumari> @mnot: you lie, we are 45 seconds over time
[22:40:40] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> BYOC
[22:40:42] <mnot> considering that I've been sitting at a phone since 7am…
[22:40:48] <brong> yeah, same
[22:40:49] <Ted Lemon> Eating some fresh bread that just came out of the oven.  Beats cookies.
[22:40:55] ek leaves the room
[22:41:07] <Martin Thomson> Are the IESG the deciders on this matter?
[22:41:11] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:41:14] <Ted Lemon> Ultimately.
[22:41:16] Amelia Andersdotter leaves the room
[22:41:19] <mcr> :coffee: I can't find cookies.
[22:41:21] joehall leaves the room
[22:41:23] <Brian Carpenter> Seats in the plenary room are filling quickly
[22:41:27] <mnot> I can't find flour.
[22:41:29] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> The IESG decide on publishing the document that effectuates the update
[22:41:38] <Ted Lemon> I just ordered some from King Arthur.
[22:41:41] <Martin Thomson> It's toilet paper again.
[22:41:50] <mnot> eww
[22:41:59] behcet joins the room
[22:42:04] ben@nostrum.com leaves the room
[22:42:07] <adam> Oof. I'm glad I get large bags of flour and store them in the freezer. I'm set for a while.
[22:42:11] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[22:42:28] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:42:29] John Levine leaves the room
[22:42:32] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> I buy a 25-lb bag from costco; lasts a couple months, IIRC
[22:42:36] <brong> We could ask them in the Plenary!
[22:42:36] <wseltzer> nomcom slots for those who promise to supply flour?
[22:42:38] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:42:43] <sftcd> yeah GOTO plenary IESG openmic
[22:42:46] <brong> it's happening RIGHT NOW
[22:42:47] <Klensin> I don't understand the question.  The IESG is not supposed to be making decisions like that without something resembling community consensus
[22:42:57] <Cullen Jennings> If only we had a plenary we could ask that
[22:42:59] adrianfarrel joins the room
[22:43:03] <spencerdawkins> The ADs that aren't seated for another hour? :-)
[22:43:24] behcet leaves the room
[22:43:40] <Ted Lemon> Woah no!
[22:43:48] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[22:44:08] <jmh> Whether this proposal comes back to gendispatch or gets resolved on eligibility-discuss probably depends upon whether we get clarity somewhere.
[22:44:15] <sftcd> @Ted: I don't think Alissa was saying she wanted to sponsor this draft
[22:44:17] <mcr> jmh, I agree.
[22:44:32] <Ted Lemon> I didn’t get that either, but she was asking if we want it to be AD-sponsored.
[22:44:32] <adam> spencerdawkins: Yeah, I'm glad that I get to hand this problem off to Murray. :)
[22:44:36] jmh leaves the room
[22:44:38] <brong> COOKIE
[22:44:41] martin.duke leaves the room
[22:44:41] <Ted Lemon> My response was to that.
[22:44:42] msk leaves the room
[22:44:44] <adam> I'm getting cake instead of a cookie
[22:44:44] sftcd leaves the room
[22:44:45] Ross leaves the room
[22:44:45] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[22:44:47] Jean Mahoney leaves the room
[22:44:47] jon-ietf leaves the room
[22:44:48] Seth Blank leaves the room
[22:44:48] mnot leaves the room
[22:44:49] Jeffrey Yasskin leaves the room
[22:44:51] dhruvdhody leaves the room
[22:44:53] Alice Russo leaves the room
[22:44:54] mit-hat@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[22:44:54] <Klensin> Thanks.  Useful discussion, IMO.
[22:44:54] Mirja leaves the room
[22:44:59] <francesca> Thanks Rich and Bron!
[22:45:02] Russ Housley leaves the room
[22:45:03] <Rich Salz> Minutes are in etherpad and being mailed to chairs.
[22:45:05] <francesca> BLUESHEET :)
[22:45:05] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:45:08] adam leaves the room
[22:45:10] tfpauly leaves the room
[22:45:16] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:45:19] Brian Carpenter leaves the room: offline
[22:45:24] RjS leaves the room
[22:45:29] m&m leaves the room
[22:45:33] <brong> francesca: you're welcome.  Turns out jabber scribe does very little in Webex meetings
[22:45:34] Klensin leaves the room
[22:45:39] <brong> I haven't seen it used yet!
[22:45:43] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[22:45:56] cabo leaves the room
[22:46:08] Sean Turner joins the room
[22:46:16] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[22:47:22] Sean Turner leaves the room
[22:47:43] jbui leaves the room
[22:47:59] Ted.h leaves the room
[22:48:00] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[22:48:35] spencerdawkins leaves the room
[22:49:01] Warren Kumari leaves the room
[22:49:54] jimsch1 leaves the room
[22:50:17] Kazunori Fujiwara leaves the room
[22:50:39] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[22:51:05] hta leaves the room
[22:52:04] Toerless Eckert leaves the room
[22:52:06] stefans leaves the room
[22:52:09] <Pete Resnick> Somebody get Kurt a jabber id so he can kibitz not in the webex chat.
[22:52:10] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room
[22:52:29] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room
[22:52:42] <Pete Resnick> Bron on top of it with the smooth jazz.
[22:52:45] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:53:19] fhartung@jabber.hot-chilli.net leaves the room
[22:53:19] Rich Salz leaves the room
[22:54:10] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:54:57] <Pete Resnick> Ah, didn't switch rooms. Over to plenary.
[22:55:04] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[22:55:19] Ted Lemon joins the room
[22:56:02] dschinazi leaves the room
[22:57:17] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[22:59:31] dkg leaves the room
[23:03:43] mcr leaves the room
[23:03:53] francesca leaves the room
[23:03:56] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:03:56] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:06:22] otroan@hanazo.no leaves the room
[23:08:25] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:09:26] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:15:32] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:16:36] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:18:42] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:20:40] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:20:45] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:21:10] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:30:06] csperkins leaves the room
[23:32:47] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[23:33:31] kiran.ietf leaves the room
[23:36:49] kiran.ietf joins the room
[23:41:35] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[23:47:58] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:49:02] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:52:16] Ted Lemon joins the room
[23:53:24] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[23:54:23] nemo joins the room
[23:54:31] kiran.ietf leaves the room: I'm not here right now
[23:55:03] nemo leaves the room
[23:55:52] dee3@jabb.im leaves the room