[01:19:29] chi.jiun.su leaves the room
[01:30:46] chi.jiun.su joins the room
[01:53:42] chi.jiun.su leaves the room
[11:34:12] kiran.ietf joins the room
[12:17:33] kiran.ietf leaves the room: I'm not here right now
[12:22:54] kiran.ietf joins the room
[12:34:56] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[12:38:19] Yoshiro Yoneya / 米谷嘉朗 joins the room
[12:40:59] -Dhruv-Dhody- joins the room
[12:41:18] -Dhruv-Dhody- has set the subject to: IETF 108
[12:48:08] adam joins the room
[12:50:00] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[12:50:00] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[12:50:00] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[12:50:00] Dhruv Dhody joins the room
[12:50:00] Rich Salz joins the room
[12:50:00] Patrick McManus joins the room
[12:50:00] Niels ten Oever joins the room
[12:50:00] Pete Resnick joins the room
[12:50:01] Cullen Jennings_438 joins the room
[12:50:41] Francesca Palombini joins the room
[12:50:51] Adam Roach joins the room
[12:51:00] Joel Halpern joins the room
[12:51:17] Dan York joins the room
[12:51:21] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[12:51:30] Greg Wood joins the room
[12:51:39] avezza joins the room
[12:52:03] Ted Hardie joins the room
[12:53:09] francesca joins the room
[12:53:22] ghwood@llc.ietf.org joins the room
[12:53:38] Christopher Wood joins the room
[12:53:40] Tommy Pauly joins the room
[12:53:53] Robert Sparks joins the room
[12:53:54] Mallory Knodel joins the room
[12:53:59] Meetecho joins the room
[12:54:10] Richard Barnes joins the room
[12:54:13] <francesca> https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-gendispatch?both
[12:54:13] Barry Leiba joins the room
[12:54:16] Pete Resnick (the other one) joins the room
[12:54:28] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[12:55:20] Stephen Farrell joins the room
[12:55:34] Jonathan Hoyland joins the room
[12:55:38] Dan Harkins joins the room
[12:56:02] Bob Hinden joins the room
[12:56:02] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[12:56:45] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[12:56:53] Amelia Andersdotter joins the room
[12:56:55] Michael Richardson joins the room
[12:57:08] sftcd joins the room
[12:57:09] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[12:57:17] Andrew S joins the room
[12:57:20] <Dan York> I will be glad to help with minute taking, too
[12:57:32] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[12:57:54] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[12:58:03] Matthew Miller joins the room
[12:58:03] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[12:58:12] Robert Stepanek joins the room
[12:58:16] Einar Bohlin joins the room
[12:58:21] Jeffrey Yasskin joins the room
[12:58:21] Andrew McConachie joins the room
[12:58:26] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[12:58:26] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[12:58:28] Erik Kline joins the room
[12:58:33] Jonathan Reed joins the room
[12:58:34] m&m joins the room
[12:58:37] Julien Maisonneuve joins the room
[12:58:41] Seth Blank joins the room
[12:58:48] Felix Günther joins the room
[12:58:49] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[12:58:49] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[12:58:52] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[12:58:53] Kris Shrishak joins the room
[12:59:02] Alissa joins the room
[12:59:09] tale joins the room
[12:59:12] John Border joins the room
[12:59:17] Brian Campbell joins the room
[12:59:27] Martin Duke joins the room
[12:59:37] Ben Campbell joins the room
[12:59:49] Peter Koch joins the room
[12:59:50] Allison Mankin joins the room
[13:00:14] Kenneth Murchison joins the room
[13:00:34] Mehmet Ersue joins the room
[13:00:36] Russ Housley joins the room
[13:00:39] Divyank Katira joins the room
[13:00:40] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[13:00:40] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[13:00:46] RjS joins the room
[13:00:46] Marco Hogewoning joins the room
[13:00:48] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[13:00:48] Jean Mahoney joins the room
[13:00:53] Jon Peterson joins the room
[13:00:57] Jason Livingood joins the room
[13:01:03] Victor Vasiliev joins the room
[13:01:07] Joey Salazar joins the room
[13:01:07] <Bob Hinden> Slides are not fully refreshing
[13:01:08] Divyank Katira leaves the room
[13:01:09] John Levine joins the room
[13:01:10] Chris Box joins the room
[13:01:12] Divyank Katira joins the room
[13:01:22] <sftcd> slide  thing happened before resizing seemed to help
[13:01:24] <RjS> yes
[13:01:26] <Rich Salz> +Bob
[13:01:28] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[13:01:28] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[13:01:29] John Klensin joins the room
[13:01:30] <Jonathan Reed> It happened in dnsop too, and meetecho said it was a presenter problem.
[13:01:32] <francesca> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-gendispatch-chairs-02
[13:01:36] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:01:37] Andrew Campling joins the room
[13:01:38] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:01:39] Francisco Arias joins the room
[13:01:40] Shumon Huque joins the room
[13:01:42] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[13:01:49] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[13:01:55] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[13:01:59] Daniel Gillmor joins the room
[13:02:00] <Joey Salazar> try reconnecting Pete
[13:02:04] John (Clone) Levine joins the room
[13:02:08] <Joey Salazar> that worked for Benno in dnsop
[13:02:15] Peter Koch leaves the room
[13:02:15] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[13:02:18] Peter Koch joins the room
[13:02:18] Alice Russo joins the room
[13:02:18] Alissa joins the room
[13:02:26] Robert Wilton joins the room
[13:02:34] jon-ietf joins the room
[13:02:35] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[13:02:35] <Meetecho> There may be different causes for slides not updating: if the presenter is sharing an application and not the screen, it can at times happen when the application is moved to a different screen or put fullscreen (which means the browser can't access it anymore)
[13:02:38] Erik Nygren joins the room
[13:02:39] John C Klensin joins the room
[13:02:40] <Bob Hinden> That is better
[13:02:51] Alissa leaves the room
[13:02:56] <Meetecho> Even though fullscreen is most of the times ok
[13:03:10] Monika Ermert joins the room
[13:03:10] Shumon Huque_ joins the room
[13:03:22] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[13:03:30] Martin Thomson joins the room
[13:03:42] <Ben Campbell> in urDispatch (Ted renamed us), I had preview in slide-show mode on second screen, and it worked flawlessly as far as I could tell.
[13:03:42] <RjS> fullscreen from preview is ok - not so much for powerpoint (if you have more than one monitor) without quite a juggling act.
[13:03:54] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[13:04:06] Divyank Katira leaves the room
[13:04:26] Divyank Katira joins the room
[13:04:40] brong joins the room
[13:04:57] <Ben Campbell> My 2nd screen was an iPad connected via Duet
[13:04:59] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[13:05:05] Ted Lemon joins the room
[13:05:06] alex-meetecho joins the room
[13:05:20] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[13:05:20] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[13:05:44] Sandy Ginoza joins the room
[13:05:57] andrew_campling joins the room
[13:06:04] <francesca> Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-gendispatch-terminology-00
[13:06:07] mcr joins the room
[13:06:15] Mike Bishop joins the room
[13:06:18] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:06:33] Dhruv Dhody leaves the room
[13:06:33] <mcr> offlist emails were less toxic, or more abusive, I wonder.
[13:06:43] nygren joins the room
[13:06:48] <John (Clone) Levine> we'll never know
[13:07:05] <Rich Salz> that was an interesting observation.
[13:07:16] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:07:35] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[13:07:37] <John (Clone) Levine> possibly "I agree with you but x, y, and z will beat me up if I say so in public"
[13:07:40] Dhruv Dhody joins the room
[13:08:10] <brong> "the lurkers support me in email" is a trope as old as usenet!
[13:08:30] <Dan Harkins> IEEE SA and TGmd has not come to this conclusion
[13:09:54] <Vittorio Bertola> Please let's not start to add random terms to the drop-list on request... We should first work out a comprehensive approach
[13:09:54] <brong> Third world countries made more sense when there was a first and second world
[13:10:08] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:10:23] <Jonathan Hoyland> Where does AD sponsored discussion happen?
[13:10:24] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:10:41] <sftcd> varies, could be new or existing list
[13:10:45] <Jeffrey Yasskin> Not about race ... right.
[13:10:51] <Ted Lemon> Sigh.
[13:11:33] <Ted Lemon> John would like to form the BIKESHED working group.
[13:11:41] Jay Daley joins the room
[13:11:52] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[13:12:00] Jason Livingood joins the room
[13:12:28] <John (Clone) Levine> master, grandfather, and redline are about race. blacklist is not
[13:12:58] <Rich Salz> extremism in the pursuit of diversity is no vice.
[13:12:59] <John (Clone) Levine> @vittorio agree
[13:13:05] <Jeffrey Yasskin> You should read "That Word Black" by Langston Hughes.
[13:13:28] <John (Clone) Levine> blacklist has problems, black has problems, they're not the same problems
[13:13:46] <Jonathan Hoyland> Given that language drifts over time, etymology is not a sufficient argument to suggest a word doesn't have a given meaning.
[13:13:53] <jon-ietf> personally i think gen AD sponsored is fine
[13:14:09] <jon-ietf> this discussion is too big for a WG
[13:14:12] Kirsty P joins the room
[13:14:15] <Rich Salz> DAMN UI mistake.  wanted to be on the queue and left it :(
[13:14:48] <francesca> Got you Rich, were you before or after Dan?
[13:14:50] <sftcd> FWIW, I'd argue for "setup a mailing list with a view to AD sponsorship when text seems ready" but not a WG - charter discussion would mean doing all the needed work, or else making needless work
[13:14:53] <Rich Salz> Create a WG, but the WG need not adopt the draft.
[13:15:03] <Rich Salz> doesn't matter to me.
[13:15:07] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[13:15:08] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:15:10] <Rich Salz> i was watching the chat.
[13:15:12] Allison Mankin leaves the room
[13:15:18] <jon-ietf> sf if we can keep it off ietf main, would be great, but good luck
[13:15:21] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[13:15:21] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[13:15:30] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[13:15:31] <Kirsty P> If you proceed with the idea of references, you can always use this: https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/blog-post/terminology-its-not-black-and-white
[13:15:40] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:15:44] <Joey Salazar> +1 to Jason
[13:15:58] Kirsty P leaves the room
[13:16:04] Nick Harper joins the room
[13:16:05] Mehmet Ersue leaves the room
[13:16:23] Mehmet Ersue joins the room
[13:16:26] David Schinazi joins the room
[13:16:43] <francesca> Ted the queue was cut after Bob, sorry :(
[13:16:49] dschinazi joins the room
[13:17:06] <mcr> maybe hrpc shouldn't be so insular, and maybe this document would help it accomplish that :-)
[13:17:15] <Amelia Andersdotter> I'm hesitant on the merit of saying that "whitelist" has more positive connotations than "blacklist". A blacklist deals with problems that have discovered, a whitelist stops problems from occurring by pre-censoring. From a freedom of speech perspective, a blacklist is /much/ preferred when it comes to person-to-person communications.
[13:17:18] <brong> everybody seems to be speaking as if our drafts are currently not applicable to a worldwide audience and easy to understand
[13:17:24] <Cullen Jennings> This was not enough discution  
[13:17:29] <sftcd> hrpc is in IRTF which cannot make a BCP
[13:17:39] <Ted Lemon> Pete, we have a bunch of old white men talking about their preferences for what this document should be.
[13:17:40] <andrew_campling> It needs to be made far less US-centric
[13:17:50] <jon-ietf> +1 ted
[13:17:50] <Erik Kline> what about in gaia?
[13:17:58] <Ted Lemon> The idea that this is about people being offended is simply incorrect.
[13:18:00] <Juliana Guerra> Is any racialized person being part of this discussion?
[13:18:05] <mcr> gaia is also a RG, I think.
[13:18:05] <francesca> Cullen I know, this session is short :/
[13:18:07] <Ted Hardie> @Pete does your conclusion mean "BoF" or something else?
[13:18:10] <Jason Livingood> It's easy to say that certain terms do not seem 'racist' to those of us that have not personally experienced racism in our lives. If people are telling us they are affected by these terms we should listen to them. It seems that there are a number of terms we can address that are obvious &amp; easy.
[13:18:23] <Seth Blank> +1 to Rich Salz's comment at the mic
[13:18:26] <Ted Lemon> The issue is that these terms are routinely used as a way to create a hostile environment that disadvantages people in minority groups.
[13:18:26] <m&m> +1 to Rich
[13:18:29] <mcr> sftcd, could hrpc incubate a document, to be passed to the IESG?
[13:18:39] <Joey Salazar> there has to be a starting point somewhere, this draft is agood starting point that needs refinement, hopefully into a process or BCP
[13:18:42] <sftcd> wel, yeah we could go the long way around sure
[13:18:42] Eliot Lear joins the room
[13:18:52] <Ted Lemon> The reason to exclude blacklist is not that the term is offensive, but rather that the term is useful.
[13:18:55] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Ted: I'm not sure I've heard solidly.
[13:18:56] <Rich Salz> IRTF is the wrong place for this, regardless of the insularity of HRPC
[13:18:57] <Joey Salazar> but we have to start Somewhere
[13:19:00] <Ted Lemon> That is, it can be used to create a hostile situation.
[13:19:05] <Bernie Hoeneisen> how about 'greylist'...?
[13:19:05] <sftcd> sure mailing lists are cheap
[13:19:07] <brong> Jason Livingood: it depends which people are telling us and what their motivations are
[13:19:08] <Joey Salazar> +1 Ted
[13:19:27] <Richard Barnes> really appreciate the diversity of the mic queue here
[13:19:29] <Ted Hardie> @Pete Thanks.  I misheard you then.
[13:19:31] <Dan Harkins> +1 Ted on blacklist, that's the point. We need useful metaphors and ditch the "racism" baggage.
[13:19:34] <John C Klensin> Since I was still trying to organize my thoughts when the queue closed, I mostly agree with John Levine -- raising this topic is long overdue and the authors have done the community a big favor by raising the issue and starting the discussion.  This draft is not the right way forward and a more or less terminology-specific document may not be.  And I still believe that, independent of what is formally done with this piece of work, the whole community should start watching the language that is being used in documents as they are reviewed... starting today if not last week.
[13:19:35] <sftcd> +many to Bob
[13:19:38] <andrew_campling> The main objective in teh slides is listed as "Increase readability and readership of RFCs and I-Ds" which seems fine, the focus on which words to exclude seems like a major and unhelpful distraction
[13:19:51] <Rich Salz> The WG can recharter to address larger diversity/inclusion issues perhaps
[13:19:58] <Rich Salz> AFTER getting some terminology down
[13:20:08] <Mark Nottingham> +1 to Bob
[13:20:08] <Barry Leiba> I don't understand why there's some thought that AD sponsorship is simpler.  It really isn't.
[13:20:19] <sftcd> @rich: charter discussion for such a WG could mean doing the entire thing over, dunno that'd be effective
[13:20:23] <Ted Lemon> Racism isn't baggage. Racism is the problem. But the problem with blacklist isn't that it's a racist term, but rather that it's a term that racists can take advantage of in technical discussions to be deniably abusive to Black people.
[13:20:32] <brong> are we sure that there will only be one document?
[13:20:36] <Robert Wilton> a WG also makes it easier to have open meetings
[13:20:36] <Ben Campbell> @Barry: well, you don't have to find willing chairs :-)
[13:20:39] <brong> (if we do a WG)
[13:20:48] <Barry Leiba> The WG structure leads us to reasonable evaluation of community consensus.  AD sponsorship for anything controversial is a minefield.
[13:21:06] <Amelia Andersdotter> The hostility of a blacklist is really in the eye of the beholder - in this case in a pretty remarkable way that the positive connotations to the word "white" causes many people to believe that pre-emptive censorship lists are in fact the most positive types of censorship lists.
[13:21:14] <mcr> it seems that it should probably be a WG in order to be able to have meetings, etc.
[13:21:21] Mehmet Ersue leaves the room
[13:21:23] <John C Klensin> @Barry +1
[13:21:25] <Dan York> +1 to Jason Livingood's comment earlier
[13:21:25] <mcr> As much as I hate spinning WGs for single documents.
[13:21:33] Mehmet Ersue joins the room
[13:21:43] <mcr> LOL.
[13:21:46] <Mallory Knodel> +1 i appreciate the change in tone. thanks everyone
[13:21:48] Mehmet Ersue leaves the room
[13:21:49] Mehmet Ersue joins the room
[13:21:49] <Dan Harkins> @Amelia, that's a great point. A blacklist is actually more permissive than a whitelist.
[13:21:53] <Ben Campbell> @mcr: The idea of a focused mini-wg is intrinsic to the dispatch process
[13:21:57] <John (Clone) Levine> the problem with real life blacklists is that they sanction people for political beliefs or union activity unrelated to whatever it is that people are blacklisted from. They have real problems unrelated to race.
[13:22:32] <Vittorio Bertola> @Dan @Amelia perhaps somewhere we should also discuss the opportunity of using black/denylists and white/allowlists in protocols independently from how we call them...
[13:22:32] <Seth Blank> The point is the term has problems.
[13:22:38] <John (Clone) Levine> that's why it's a subtle problem. On the other hand, I don't think my daughter's new Master of Arts degree is a problem.
[13:22:41] <mcr> professional moderation.
[13:22:47] <Ted Lemon> Moderation, Alissa.
[13:22:54] <mcr> (both of the ML, and of the meetings)
[13:23:06] <John (Clone) Levine> it does, but I think it's important to understand why words have problems rather than just saying we can't say X
[13:23:06] <Amelia Andersdotter> So in the EU, there have been discussions on whitelist vs blacklist approaches to online gambling for instance - a political problem, for sure, but not one which is related to punishing political beliefs, but rather taking care of addiction problems and vulnerable communities who are otherwise preyed upon by unlicensed commercial actors.
[13:23:35] <John (Clone) Levine> @amelia we'll that's the issue -- the actual use is OK, the metaphor isn't
[13:23:38] <Dan Harkins> @John, it's not. "master bathroom" is not a problem either yet misguided people have said it is.
[13:23:48] <mcr> Amelia, and is there a meta-discussion about using the terms whitelist vs blacklist?
[13:24:02] <Martin Thomson> why was this only given 10 minutes?
[13:24:19] <francesca> because we have 3 documents and 50 minutes
[13:24:27] <Mark Nottingham> Pete, I have a question of clarification
[13:24:29] <francesca> and it's been 20
[13:24:42] <Ted Lemon> I think if we want a discussion that doesn't suck in the way Alissa described, we can't just have a mailing list.
[13:24:57] <mcr> It's funny that "master FOO" is the young man of the house, while "mister FOO" is the senior man of the house.
[13:24:59] <francesca> Ted are you in favor of WG?
[13:25:03] <Amelia Andersdotter> Gambling policies are always very difficult because there are many well-financed participants and different regulatory cultures that need to co-exist in the EU. It is not universally recognised that gambling risks causing harm to individuals, and some member states have online casinos as their primary export.
[13:25:08] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:25:09] <Mallory Knodel> @ted: or people could just behave?
[13:25:10] <Dan Harkins> @pete, you said "blackness"
[13:25:23] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> :-)
[13:25:23] <Ted Hardie> @Mallory which Ted?
[13:25:26] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[13:25:27] <Ted Lemon> The IETF does a poor job of having hard discussions. If we want to have this hard discussion, I think we need to address the general problem.
[13:25:28] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:25:34] <Jonathan Hoyland> Is it more or less exclusionary to use the term redlining vs blacklisting?
[13:25:34] <Jason Livingood> +1 ted
[13:25:46] <Jonathan Reed> +1 to Ted
[13:25:51] <Ted Lemon> I would be interested in doing an experiment on this.
[13:25:58] <mcr> @Ted, I agree. We need a list that has some of the manycouches ideas about limited number of replies, etc.
[13:26:00] <Ted Lemon> But it will probably be un-fun.
[13:26:23] <Vittorio Bertola> @Amelia the people that do not recognize that gambling can become an addiction that kills people usually are those that make money out of it :-( (been there as a big city councillor)
[13:26:25] <Mark Nottingham> Does the IESG have to startg every discussion with a statement/
[13:26:32] <Dan Harkins> maybe a mailing list but get the ombudsteam to keep a lid on it.
[13:26:43] <Ted Lemon> I don't think even that is good enough.
[13:26:45] <mcr> are there some options we can agree are not going to work?
[13:26:49] bhoeneis joins the room
[13:26:50] <dschinazi> Could we have a moderated list?
[13:27:12] <John (Clone) Levine> @Jonathan Yes.
[13:27:13] <Ted Lemon> I think that every post needs to be moderated. The moderation queue probably needs to be public, so that people can see if moderation is not being done appropriately.
[13:27:15] <Cullen Jennings> Face to face would be best way to have this discution. Since we can not do that, well run high quality video would be best
[13:27:18] <Ted Lemon> There will be lots of complaints.
[13:27:18] <Amelia Andersdotter> @mcr by which i mean, the meta-discussions are on a different plane with gambling. it was more an example from stuff i have actually done where blacklists were by far the better option and whitelists something to be feared - white/black in the EU also has the advantage of being easily translatable into the 23 official languages.
[13:27:26] <Eliot Lear> having conference calls across 18 time zones is also difficult, as we rfcedfuture folks have learned
[13:27:27] Christopher Wood leaves the room
[13:27:27] <brong> Timezones are nasty for real-time
[13:27:27] <Jay Daley> Hint to speakers: You should be able to tell if you are sending audio by the moving waveform in the top left next to your name
[13:27:28] <Ted Lemon> @cullen agreed. but how? :)
[13:27:45] <Jason Livingood> Can you pls recap the decision for the notes?
[13:27:50] <Eliot Lear> @bron jinx you ow me a coke ;-)
[13:27:53] Francisco Arias leaves the room
[13:28:06] <Bob Hinden> How about if we create a new list now, independent of if it's a w.g. or ad sponsored, or something else?
[13:28:12] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[13:28:13] <RjS> @jay - no motion indicates a problem, but motion does not say there is not a problem
[13:28:17] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[13:28:18] <francesca> Jason: needs to continue dispatch discussion on the gendispatch mailing list
[13:28:20] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[13:28:21] <Martin Thomson> The question of how to dispatch the draft will be discussed on the gendispatch list.
[13:28:24] <mcr> . o O ( white/black in the EU also has the advantage of being easily translatable into the 23 official languages )
[13:28:25] <brong> Eliot Lear: come get it, it's in the fridge
[13:28:27] <brong> BYO mask
[13:28:32] <Ted Lemon> Bob, creating a list that's not moderated will probably fail.
[13:28:37] Martin Duke leaves the room
[13:28:41] <Ted Lemon> And make a lot of people suffer needlessly in the process.
[13:28:57] <mcr> would accept-list / block-list have been hard to translate?
[13:29:13] <Bob Hinden> Ted:  What is an alternative and still do something?
[13:29:25] Daniel Gillmor leaves the room
[13:29:31] <Martin Thomson> I'm not sure about the quality of the numbers if 10 people volunteered for nomcom but weren't eligible
[13:29:32] <Alissa> I think one problem with an ietf mailing list is that there is almost no actual expertise in the ietf community on this topic
[13:29:35] <Ted Lemon> A moderated mailing list with a visible moderation queue and some volunteers who are willing to moderate.
[13:29:36] <Dan York> Jason: Notes are being captured over at https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-gendispatch?view
[13:29:38] <Vittorio Bertola> @mcr Italian is easy, we just don't translate technical English terms
[13:29:47] <Dan York> (Additions / changes to notes are welcome: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-gendispatch?view )
[13:29:51] <Jonathan Hoyland> @mcr block has a few meanings, I would imagine deny list would be easier to translate accurately.
[13:30:06] <Ted Lemon> proscription list
[13:30:08] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:30:10] <mcr> @Vittoria, I have a copy of Cheswick/Bellovin, Firewalls, in Japanese. Sorta. 50% english words.
[13:30:18] <Bob Hinden> I am fine with a moderated list (assuming we can do that).   Good to try it out.
[13:30:33] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:30:39] <francesca> draft: https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-carpenter-eligibility-expand-03.html
[13:30:45] <Ted Lemon> Alissa makes a very good point, though. There is a certain absence of diversity in the set of people participating in this conversation.
[13:30:47] <Alissa> sometimes the thing to do is to stop talking within one's own bubble and try to listen to informed views of people from outside the bubble
[13:30:58] <mcr> +1
[13:30:59] Melinda joins the room
[13:31:08] <Jonathan Hoyland> +1 Alissa
[13:31:14] <mcr> pandemic rules says my bubble is limited to 10 people :-)
[13:31:16] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:31:17] <Dan York> Slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-gendispatch-eligibility-expand-00
[13:31:23] <jon-ietf> the ietf doesn't really have a process for that
[13:31:26] <francesca> Thanks Dan
[13:31:28] <Ted Lemon> I was just alarmed that "Ted" was in the queue and accidentally added myself. :)
[13:31:34] <jon-ietf> the ietf is only designed to work in its bubble
[13:31:39] <Vittorio Bertola> @Alissa I agree with that, as long as you are not just listening to the militant groups that are pressuring you to act from the outside
[13:31:49] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:31:54] <Ted Lemon> I have no idea what that means, Vittorio.
[13:32:03] <Alissa> neither do I
[13:32:05] <Jonathan Reed> what does a "militant group" look like?
[13:32:12] <Ted Lemon> Carry guns, wear camo.
[13:32:24] <Jeffrey Yasskin> "Militant" is not a good characterization of the groups that want us to be more inclusive.
[13:32:24] <Dan Harkins> @alissa part of the problem is assumptions the bubble imposes on its members concerning those who are not in the bubble.
[13:32:28] <brong> people who's goals do not align with the IETF's mission statement
[13:32:30] <mcr> I never imagined it included Expert Reviewers were I* rules.
[13:32:32] <mcr> roles.
[13:32:41] <brong> but want the IETF to be food soldiers in their own goals, which are not aligned
[13:32:49] <Jonathan Hoyland> Those who "take up arms against a sea of troubles"?
[13:32:54] <Vittorio Bertola> I mean that there are people with strong views on the subject that come from the outside and ask you to do something. If you want to understand if it makes sense, you should also listen to other views from the outside, and not just to those.
[13:33:14] <Ted Lemon> Again I have no idea what that actually means in practice, Vittorio.
[13:33:30] <Ted Lemon> Do you mean that people who are having a serious problem and want you to help fix it should be ignored in favor of people who are okay with the status quo?
[13:33:47] <Ted Lemon> Certainly people in the former group will seem more "militant" than people in the latter group.
[13:34:17] <Ted Hardie> Path 4: Has served in the IESG or IAB, or has been appointed to a formal role by the IESG or IAB, within the last 5 years.
[13:34:20] <Vittorio Bertola> First of all, apparently in this case the people that have the problem and the people that want you to fix it do not seem to be the same group.
[13:34:22] <Ted Hardie> (from the draft)
[13:34:25] <brong> People who claim to have solutions to a perceived problem without being able to demonstrate the extent of the problem or the efficacy of their proposed solution
[13:34:30] <sftcd> fair enough that "formal role" is a bit wide, agreed
[13:34:35] <andrew_campling> @Ted Maybe ensure consult  widely and with diverse groups  
[13:34:37] <Vittorio Bertola> Then, you should of course not ignore them, but perhaps there are other views that should also be heard
[13:34:50] <Jonathan Hoyland> I would agree that you can't just listen to those who are willing to stick their head above the parapet. There are those who are oppressed and don't speak.
[13:35:08] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:35:21] <Ted Hardie> Note also that this path:  Path 5: Has been a listed author of at least 2 IETF stream RFCs and/or WG-adopted drafts within the last 5 years.
[13:35:25] <Ted Hardie> has a gotcha.
[13:35:33] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:35:40] <Vittorio Bertola> For example, I have no idea if anything like an association of African American software developers exists, but I would much like to hear their views
[13:35:49] <Ted Hardie> The practice is to include original authors on many -bis drafts, which restores eligibility to people who have disengaged.
[13:36:12] <Jonathan Hoyland> @Vittorio I think the resistance to your statement is from describing the people who do speak up as militant, not to the idea that we be more inclusive in our document drafting.
[13:36:19] <Vittorio Bertola> I would also like to hear engineers from India or from China, for example
[13:36:21] <Mallory Knodel> +1 alissa made a good point about participation in this discussion, which Juliana first made about 30 min ago.
[13:36:29] <Ted Hardie> For this to work as a good experiment, it needs to be much tigher.
[13:36:32] <RjS> @ted - sure, but in practice, those people won't actually volunteer
[13:37:09] <Vittorio Bertola> Perhaps then it's a problem of wording - "militant" in Italian is a common word to indicate people that passionately do political activism, it does not have any other connotation
[13:37:10] <RjS> so, _allowing_ them to volunteer is not as bad as disallowing people who are otherwise actually engaged
[13:37:18] Alice Russo leaves the room
[13:37:33] <Vittorio Bertola> Is "militant" an inappropriate word in American English?
[13:37:42] John Border leaves the room
[13:37:54] <Ted Hardie> I object, since I think that should be minuted.
[13:37:55] <Jonathan Hoyland> @Vittorio militant has a strongly negative connotation.
[13:38:00] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:38:05] <francesca> If you OBJECT to AD sponsored: HUM
[13:38:16] <mcr> (or stay silent, I guess)
[13:38:16] <Ted Lemon> Militant means unwilling to engage in a conversation, insistent on using force.
[13:38:26] John Border joins the room
[13:38:36] <Vittorio Bertola> No, there is no connotation of force in my dictionary, just of passion
[13:39:04] <Mike Bishop> It often has derogatory overtones, usually implying that you think they're excessive in their passions.
[13:39:18] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:39:19] <mcr> or at least, rigit.
[13:39:21] <mcr> rigid
[13:39:26] <Ted Lemon> What I'm really getting at, Vittorio, is that neither you nor I are really qualified to decide who has a right to speak on this and who doesn't. Us deciding is not the right approach.
[13:39:44] <Vittorio Bertola> Ok, understood
[13:40:14] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[13:40:16] <mcr> @sftcd: is that a map of Ireland behind you?  I thought it was Canada at first.
[13:40:18] <Ted Lemon> Ideally the measure for whether a term should be considered for being excluded is simply, "is this term routinely used to create a hostile work environment"
[13:40:21] <Ted Hardie> I will write a counter proposal and bring that to eligibility discuss.
[13:40:32] <andrew_campling> @Ted but you can both helpfully suggest how to expand the pool of contributors
[13:40:35] <Ted Lemon> It doesn't matter then how strongly people feel about it.
[13:40:43] Kris Shrishak leaves the room
[13:41:17] <francesca> slides: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-gendispatch-draft-adoption-00
[13:42:03] Jason Livingood joins the room
[13:42:23] <nygren > +1 to Ted.  It is very important to get input from people who are most impacted by this language, but also important to not make them do the hard work of driving change.
[13:42:58] <Bob Hinden> On current talk:  Another reason for this behaviour, is that the authors don't want to give up control over the document.
[13:43:03] <Jeffrey Yasskin> &lt;3 mcr's description.
[13:43:53] <Ted Hardie> This is the heart of what I will counter-propose, which I believe is much simpler:
[13:43:55] <Cullen Jennings> The do it externally with small group of people then get WG to adjust the commas is the most effective way to get stuff done at IETF. See SDF coming out of the ASDF BOF this meeting for a perfect example how how to execute this.
[13:44:03] <Ted Hardie> Beginning with IETF 109, for any plenary meeting in which the IETF had no in-person participation, any registrant for the meeting will be treated as an in-person  registrant for the purposes of the NomCom rules.  The experiment for this will terminate when two in-person meetings have been held after IETF 109."
[13:44:10] <John C Klensin> (from the dinosaur pen):  Once upon a time, there was sometimes a quite different model:  WG adopts topic, discusses in general terms, appoints editor, doc emerges as WG document and progresses from there.
[13:44:29] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[13:44:37] Jason Livingood joins the room
[13:44:49] Nick Harper leaves the room
[13:45:09] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:45:18] <mcr> +1 John.
[13:45:18] <sftcd> @ted: personally I could live with that as a short-term thing but prefer draft-carpenter because it's model also helps wrt people who are habitually remote, but please suggest on elig list
[13:45:18] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:45:19] <andrew_campling> @Ted would you include one day registrants?  Or just full registrants?  
[13:45:30] <francesca> (FYI thanks for the discussion in the jabber, we are short on time today but a lot of good discussion is being happening here)
[13:45:32] <Rich Salz> I really like the simplicity of Ted's idea
[13:45:33] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> FWIW: On the terminology issue, I have to agree with Cullen's (much) earlier comment that we didn't have enough time to discuss the dispatch question on that document. :-(
[13:45:40] <Barry Leiba> Ted: What that misses for me is that I think it's critically important for us to find a path for NomCom eligibility for long-term remote-only participants.
[13:45:51] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Let's please continue the discussion now on the gendispatch list.
[13:45:58] <Ted Hardie> @Barry if the experiment shows this works, then shift to that.
[13:46:04] <sftcd> +1 to Barry
[13:46:04] Chris Box leaves the room
[13:46:07] <Erik Kline> we don't have a de-adoption process, other than abandonment timeout
[13:46:14] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:46:23] <RjS> mmm. no?
[13:46:26] <Ted Lemon> Meeting attendance has always been a poor approximation for participation.
[13:46:26] <RjS> @erik
[13:46:32] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:46:33] <RjS> chairs can move docs to wg-dead
[13:46:50] <Ted Lemon> Making non in-person attendance an additional poor approximation for participation is a way to not solve this problem.
[13:46:55] <Barry Leiba> Pete's right: let's discuss it on eligibility-discuss, rather than in this jabber room.
[13:46:59] <Ted Lemon> Admittedly, that may be the right thing to do, but we should be clear on that.
[13:47:07] <Ben Campbell> @erik, I've personally unadopted wg items as a chair--but it's a hard decision to make
[13:47:38] <-Dhruv-Dhody-> @Erik - https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-5.2
[13:47:38] <Ben Campbell> (psychologically hard, not process hard)
[13:47:39] <Erik Kline> do wg chairs do this w/ consensus from the group?  I've never seen this in action
[13:47:45] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:47:45] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:47:54] <Cullen Jennings> And yet another discussion dies under "this needs to be discussed on ietf@ietf but no one is willing to have a discussions in that venue due as it is too painful "
[13:47:56] Divyank Katira leaves the room
[13:48:42] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:48:47] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:48:51] andrew_campling leaves the room
[13:49:01] <nygren > Having a process for "after lots of discussion and exploration, this turns out to not be a good idea and should not move forwards" does seem helpful.
[13:49:01] <RjS> it's rare, but it has happened
[13:49:02] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:49:08] Brian Campbell joins the room
[13:49:28] <RjS> and yes, consensus is needed or the chairs get corrected
[13:49:48] Andrew Campling leaves the room
[13:49:58] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Francesca and I are thinking that we should do a gendispatch interim and get these things sorted.
[13:50:01] <Ted Lemon> Why don't we want that?
[13:50:06] <-Dhruv-Dhody-> +1 to Adrian
[13:50:15] <Ben Campbell> +1 Adrian
[13:50:22] <Barry Leiba> GD interim would be loverly.
[13:50:36] <Ted Lemon> I really hate it when people make assertions about what the group wants (even though Dhruv and Ben agree) and then don't explain the reasoning behind their assertion.
[13:50:37] <Cullen Jennings> What does "just do it" mean as a place to do it
[13:50:39] <bhoeneis> If we are revising this process, we may want to think about the case, when the working group is closed, but the WG document not finished
[13:50:51] Brian Campbell leaves the room
[13:51:16] <Rich Salz> the language draft we just discussed was an example of this, no?
[13:51:20] <Martin Thomson> time notice
[13:51:22] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[13:51:28] <John C Klensin> @Barry, yes.  And I'm concerned that, if we use this process/document as an excuse to defer dealing with active remote participants who are not in some leading role, it will reinforce (statistical) biases in the Nomcom and possibly the leadership sufficiently, we will lose those participants.   That is particularly important if we end up with the combination of more all-remote meetings and budgetary pressures limiting f2f attendance when we do have such attendance.   Noting the similarity to the language conversation, behaving in a way that convinces some group of people that they are second-class (or worse) actors is just not wise.  And saynig "let's do something else for a few years and then come back to this" may be worse.
[13:51:28] <francesca> yep thanks Martin
[13:51:40] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> @Martin: Yes, Francesca just mentioned.
[13:51:46] <bhoeneis> we have a tricky case in the OpenPGP WG, that was shat down and the author is the WG Draft continues to update the document, leavin the impression it is as WG document (draft-ietf-openpgp-)
[13:51:56] <bhoeneis> s/shat/shut/
[13:52:09] <-Dhruv-Dhody-> @Ted - let me explain, i read RFC 7221 and found it described adoption process much better than this document. I like the flexibility it offers and the dynamics of each WG is different
[13:52:20] <mcr> the chair/AD should un-approve the openpgp document then!
[13:52:24] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[13:52:47] John Border leaves the room
[13:52:52] Jonathan Reed leaves the room
[13:53:02] Jon Peterson leaves the room
[13:53:10] jon-ietf leaves the room
[13:53:12] <brong> do we want to have any barriers to participation?  If so, what?
[13:53:47] <brong> clearly "totally unable to play nice with others" is one, as evidenced by the process for ejecting somebody who misbehaves
[13:53:48] <Rich Salz> "not high volume"  wasn't, you mean.
[13:53:54] <John C Klensin> @Dhruv: Yes.  Important to not lose sight of the fact that different WGs have different styles and dynamics - -we shouldn't accidentally overconstrain that.
[13:54:01] Erik Kline leaves the room
[13:54:01] Sandy Ginoza leaves the room
[13:54:02] <mcr> brong, we need proof of corporeal exitences on this plane of existence :-)
[13:54:04] Julien Maisonneuve leaves the room
[13:54:06] Dan Harkins leaves the room
[13:54:07] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[13:54:08] Victor Vasiliev leaves the room
[13:54:08] Robert Wilton leaves the room
[13:54:09] Tommy Pauly leaves the room
[13:54:09] Peter Koch leaves the room
[13:54:10] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[13:54:10] Mallory Knodel leaves the room
[13:54:10] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[13:54:10] Greg Wood leaves the room
[13:54:10] John Levine leaves the room
[13:54:11] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[13:54:11] Ted Hardie leaves the room
[13:54:11] Jay Daley leaves the room
[13:54:11] Russ Housley leaves the room
[13:54:12] Stephen Farrell leaves the room
[13:54:12] Einar Bohlin leaves the room
[13:54:13] Mike Bishop leaves the room
[13:54:13] Matthew Miller leaves the room
[13:54:13] Andrew S leaves the room
[13:54:14] Jeffrey Yasskin leaves the room
[13:54:14] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[13:54:14] Joel Halpern leaves the room
[13:54:14] Jean Mahoney leaves the room
[13:54:15] Robert Stepanek leaves the room
[13:54:15] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[13:54:15] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[13:54:16] sftcd leaves the room
[13:54:16] mcr leaves the room
[13:54:16] Robert Sparks leaves the room
[13:54:16] Felix Günther leaves the room
[13:54:17] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[13:54:17] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[13:54:17] Kenneth Murchison leaves the room
[13:54:17] Cullen Jennings_438 leaves the room
[13:54:17] Jonathan Hoyland leaves the room
[13:54:18] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[13:54:18] David Schinazi leaves the room
[13:54:19] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[13:54:19] Rich Salz leaves the room
[13:54:20] Seth Blank leaves the room
[13:54:21] nygren leaves the room
[13:54:23] Amelia Andersdotter leaves the room
[13:54:23] Shumon Huque leaves the room
[13:54:24] Shumon Huque_ leaves the room
[13:54:24] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[13:54:24] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[13:54:24] Mehmet Ersue leaves the room
[13:54:24] Erik Nygren leaves the room
[13:54:24] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[13:54:24] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[13:54:24] Andrew McConachie leaves the room
[13:54:24] Francesca Palombini leaves the room
[13:54:24] Bob Hinden leaves the room
[13:54:24] John Klensin leaves the room
[13:54:24] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[13:54:24] Adam Roach leaves the room
[13:54:24] Michael Richardson leaves the room
[13:54:24] tale leaves the room
[13:54:24] Dan York leaves the room
[13:54:24] Marco Hogewoning leaves the room
[13:54:24] Dhruv Dhody leaves the room
[13:54:24] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[13:54:24] Niels ten Oever leaves the room
[13:54:24] Patrick McManus leaves the room
[13:54:24] Joey Salazar leaves the room
[13:54:24] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[13:54:29] John (Clone) Levine leaves the room
[13:54:30] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[13:55:46] Meetecho leaves the room
[13:55:49] -Dhruv-Dhody- leaves the room
[13:56:24] Yoshiro Yoneya / 米谷嘉朗 leaves the room
[13:56:24] m&m leaves the room
[13:57:39] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[13:58:44] ghwood@llc.ietf.org leaves the room
[14:03:26] avezza leaves the room
[14:03:26] dschinazi leaves the room
[14:04:53] Alissa leaves the room
[14:11:03] bhoeneis leaves the room
[14:11:15] chi.jiun.su joins the room
[14:11:31] Melinda leaves the room
[14:18:43] Alissa joins the room
[14:37:40] RjS leaves the room
[15:16:47] brong leaves the room
[15:40:22] kiran.ietf leaves the room
[15:40:29] chi.jiun.su leaves the room
[15:44:43] adam leaves the room
[15:45:26] francesca leaves the room
[16:41:49] John C Klensin leaves the room
[18:25:01] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:53:25] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[18:57:02] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[19:00:02] Alissa leaves the room
[20:01:03] kiran.ietf joins the room
[20:08:20] Alissa joins the room