[19:51:41] Pete Resnick joins the room
[19:52:02] <francesca> https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-interim-2020-gendispatch-03-gendispatch
[19:52:18] <francesca> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2020-gendispatch-01/session/gendispatch
[19:59:39] jmh joins the room
[19:59:45] adam joins the room
[20:00:46] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[20:00:48] Mirja joins the room
[20:00:52] Jim Fenton joins the room
[20:01:20] <Mirja> good evening everybody! :-)
[20:01:30] andrew_campling joins the room
[20:01:39] <Mirja> or whatever time zone your are in
[20:02:05] <Jim Fenton> It takes a minute to log into everything and sign the blue sheet...
[20:02:13] Melinda joins the room
[20:03:08] Eliot Lear joins the room
[20:03:16] <Eliot Lear> hiya
[20:04:24] nto joins the room
[20:05:05] brong joins the room
[20:05:16] <brong> I'm not certain if 6am counts as being the night before
[20:05:21] RjS joins the room
[20:07:01] John (Clone) Levine joins the room
[20:08:01] mcr joins the room
[20:08:20] <mcr> . o O ( hand it off to some other organization... hmm.... )
[20:08:54] <brong> an update to RFC3935
[20:09:46] rwilton joins the room
[20:13:37] <mcr> @Alissa: the agenda links to: "Discussion of document terminology. Detailed agenda will be provided soon."  <-- I really would like a better agenda posted.  I really think that I should be able to click easily from the agenda through to the webex/minutes/etc.  Can we try to do better?  
[20:13:37] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Connection failed: connection closed
[20:14:05] <Alissa Cooper> I have no control over the agenda
[20:14:36] <mcr> I know. But, responsible AD... I feel like chairs are not in general listening.
[20:14:51] Eliot Lear joins the room
[20:16:02] <francesca> mcr agenda was updated: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/agenda-interim-2020-gendispatch-01-gendispatch-01/
[20:16:26] brong leaves the room
[20:16:33] <francesca> you are looking at v-00
[20:16:47] <francesca> and chairs are listening here :)
[20:19:22] <mcr> okay, there is a latency in the calendar entry being updated.  I don't know what it is.  May I suggest that if detailed agenda will be provided soon, that you link to the something you can change.  I know where to look for the links, but many do not.
[20:20:33] <francesca> Ok, will do that, will link to codimd next time. Also I posted to the mailing list as well just to make sure
[20:22:33] <mcr> Thank you.  I imagine Brian woke up at 4am-ish for this, and that kind of thing is going to be common for another 6 months for sure, so having the links to join available easily would help.  A link to the codimg is really perfect.
[20:23:02] <Pete Resnick> I think Bron might be the earliest of the bunch.
[20:23:46] brong joins the room
[20:25:08] <mcr> I've heard that Bron is a cyborg and doesn't sleep :-)
[20:25:34] <Jim Fenton> yeah, definitely.
[20:25:42] <brong> mcr: it's true
[20:27:37] <mcr> Question, maybe to @Eliot: is the rfcsed Programme a place we can dispatch to?
[20:28:58] <brong> oh, that group would love more work to do...
[20:29:18] <mcr> er, I mean rfced-future.  https://www.iab.org/activities/programs/rfc-editor-future-development-program/  probably not. But, I like Keith's point of putting the RFC Editor in charge.
[20:29:41] Barbara Stark-jabber joins the room
[20:31:14] <Eliot Lear> No
[20:31:29] <Eliot Lear> Well, I don't think it's a good idea
[20:31:34] <Eliot Lear> we're an IAB program
[20:31:51] <Eliot Lear> and while we operate as a WG, I think we need to focus more on the whole model rather than specific work items
[20:32:19] <Eliot Lear> anyway, that's my opinion.  others may differ
[20:32:19] <mcr> thank you. I didn't think it was a good idea, but I like to kill bad ideas early.
[20:33:36] <mcr> I think that if you quote from the rfc-editor presentation w/errata URL, then it works.
[20:34:11] <andrew_campling> Any reason not to dispatch to a BOF?  
[20:34:37] <brong> I probably should have added "when using a new term, we should backreference the old term for a while" so it's clear - at least when talking about the same protocol.
[20:34:56] <Melinda> https://mysqlhighavailability.com/mysql-terminology-updates/
[20:35:10] <mcr> Disney+: has a warning _This program may depict antiquated cultural references_. It took me awhile to figure out what it meant the first time I saw it.
[20:36:04] <Alissa Cooper> Among SDOs, I would say W3C is the first mover here.
[20:40:31] <mcr> @andrew_campling, it seems like a BOF is a big effort, but AD sponsor won't work.  I think that getting a charter done will be 90% of the effort. It might wear people out completely, leaving nothing for the document itself.  
[20:42:26] <brong> Jim Fenton: there is a question here of "is the point of this document being something that can be included in the slides at OTHER organisations in order to drive them"
[20:44:43] <Jim Fenton> brong: At least the draft has the boilerplate has the usual "this is a draft" statement, and it's still being cited elsewhere. We can't really help that, but I'm really concerned about the GitHub repository.
[20:48:05] <brong> I agree that my draft could use a lot of work!
[20:50:13] <brong> for the outside world, it doesn't matter what track we post it on - people will still see the magic 3 letters R F C and they will treat it the same
[20:50:34] <Jim Fenton> +1
[20:50:37] <brong> I suspect I just put the wrong boilerplate on mine
[20:50:43] <mcr> I think that we should do *something* with draft-knodel-terminology. Rather than remove the specific examples, I would suggest that it document how those terms have evolved.  So yes, maybe make draft-knodel Informational, Updating some BCP on producing RFCs.
[20:50:57] <Eliot Lear> I know it's OT, but isn't it darned cool to hear voices of people who we don't normally see at the meetings?
[20:52:24] <RjS> @eliot: more use of cameras would be even better.
[20:52:26] <mcr> Oh damn.  Are the voices in my head bothering you? I personally still hear Jon Postel's voice in my head
[20:54:28] <mcr> @Barbara: would the RFC make such a list, or would it create a repository to keep the list?
[20:55:47] <Melinda> Well, there are also the semiotics of the process and discussion - what's being signaled.  This isn't just about us.  If the goal is to be inclusive, a statement about inclusive language helps to signal that.  The converse ("the IETF took up the question of exclusionary language and decided not to do anything") sends a signal that we might not actually be willing to make an effort to be inclusive.
[20:55:54] <mcr> . o O ( put an RFC through an English -> old-English translator.... )
[20:57:01] <brong> Melinda: that's why I talked about "welcome signaling" in my draft :)
[20:58:58] <mcr> I want two things: 1) an explanation of the history of some of the terms that we have decided to use less often, 2) description of the process by which we will consider issues with additional terms, and collect information about existing documents (that errata is the right process, if that is the process)
[20:59:19] <mcr> So Keith's video works, but his audio/mic does not. Hilarious.
[20:59:47] <mcr> maybe my two points are enough to write a charter and do a BOF.
[21:00:05] <Pete Resnick> Keith
[21:00:13] <Pete Resnick> Keith's mic kept feeding back.
[21:00:21] <Pete Resnick> He switched to the phone.
[21:00:35] <mcr> ah...
[21:03:25] <mcr> I guess the reason we need a WG is because I think that the question of idnits changes and official lists is precisely controversial.
[21:04:27] brong leaves the room
[21:09:27] <RjS> pete - consider dropping the shared screen unless you think you need it later. it would be nice to see larger views of those who are sharing video
[21:09:47] <Pete Resnick> 👍
[21:13:59] <jmh> I get uncomfortable when someone says "no one gets offended by".
[21:14:28] <Melinda> :+1
[21:18:39] <mcr> I think that Viktor's comments about creation of word/thought crimes is relevant: few westerners understand their pain. Meanwhile, there are north-american pains which are not clearly shared elsewhere.  Not being US-centric, doesn't mean not being US-inclusionary.
[21:20:12] <andrew_campling> Agree that not being US-centric shouldn't mean not being US-inclusionary.
[21:20:14] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[21:20:14] Eliot Lear joins the room
[21:20:26] <jmh> I think it is reasoanble that any descriptions are guidance rather than words.  It seems to me that a word list can be useful.  I think with a little care we can avoid turning that into "word police" which indeed would be an unfortunate outcome.
[21:21:19] <mcr> @jmh, I agree. That's why I don't want idnits updates.  Because Master's of Science. Master Zone. etc.
[21:22:06] <nto> Am a bit surprised that ppl think draft-knodel is US-centric, since the co-author is from Europe (and also very much reflecting ongoing discussions in the Netherlands and Germany)
[21:22:57] Mirja leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[21:23:09] brong joins the room
[21:23:16] <jmh> @mcr I do think that getting IDnits to do the right thing would require a lot more complexity, due as you say to the subtleties of when the terms are okay, are marginal, or are a bad idea.
[21:23:37] <jmh> @mcr, so net, I agree that trying to get idnits to enforce the list is not a good idea.
[21:24:13] <Melinda> I think my concerns about Bron's document (in addition to the security considerations section, which is problematic on a number of fronts) is that it doesn't show the rigor that we tend to expect from IETF documents.  There has been considerable academic and other work done on these questions and Bron's tends to rely on everybody-knows and common-sense reasoning, when some of these everybody-knows things tend to be highly cultural and situational, etc.  draft-knodel does have a basis in existing work
[21:24:49] <Melinda> Also, definitely nto - I've wondered about that as well (and I think Mallory was living in Africa at the time the first draft was published)
[21:24:49] <brong> Melinda: for sure... mine needs a lot of work
[21:25:13] <brong> and the security considerations needs to be clarified a lot - it's the "I identify as an apache helicopter" problem
[21:25:20] <nto> @melina - exactly, that's true!
[21:25:43] <brong> and needs to be clarified as that being what we need to prevent against being used to block work
[21:26:39] <Melinda> I'm actually not that concerned about that, to the extent that we're a consensus-based organization
[21:26:54] Mirja joins the room
[21:27:26] <brong> Melinda: likewise, but if we define a list of words which overrides consensus then it becomes a problem - so maybe I was reacting to that
[21:28:23] <mcr> Based upon the discussion, I have changed my mind: we should go towards a BOF. I think we need to do the majority of the drafting of the charter via virtual interim.
[21:30:41] <mcr> That pesky Colin, focusing us on practical questions... asking important charter questions like that!  :-)
[21:31:33] <andrew_campling> Unlike Colin I found the Knodel draft far too narrow and negative in the way that it was framed, thought Bron's was far better
[21:33:58] <mcr> That's an interesting suggestion Rich.  I rather like it.
[21:36:45] <Eliot Lear> I like Rich's suggestion as well
[21:37:19] <andrew_campling> +1 to the overall idea from Rich, although I think it would be better to make a decision about the best document to send to a newly-formed IAB group as the right starting point rather than sending all three
[21:38:20] <mcr> +10 on Joel.
[21:39:10] <mcr> It seems like that there will be an EDU program result.
[21:43:55] brong leaves the room
[21:50:48] <RjS> my apologies for not sharing video while speaking - too many buttons to unmute.
[21:52:41] <jmh> @RjS as far as I know video is not required.  My laptop does not even have a camera.
[21:53:00] brong joins the room
[21:53:16] brong leaves the room
[21:53:42] <RjS> sure - but I've been nudging people to participate that way when they can, and I feel bad that I didn't do it myself.
[21:54:45] <Eliot Lear> thanks Pete!
[21:54:47] jmh leaves the room
[21:54:48] John (Clone) Levine leaves the room
[21:54:54] andrew_campling leaves the room
[21:54:58] Barbara Stark-jabber leaves the room
[21:54:58] Melinda leaves the room
[21:55:01] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[21:55:16] <Alissa Cooper> Thank you Francesca and Pete.
[21:58:29] <mcr> @Pete, @francesca, so did we get enough to get a dispatch result?  I didn't get that impression.  I'm unclear from the comments at the end if another virtual interim will occur.
[21:58:42] <francesca> it will
[21:59:00] <francesca> this discussion will be summarized and will be the input to next interim (on the same topic)
[21:59:02] <Pete Resnick> Yes, we are having the second meeting no matter what.
[21:59:35] francesca leaves the room
[22:00:54] <mcr> thank you.
[22:03:23] nto leaves the room
[22:05:02] Mirja leaves the room
[22:05:51] Mirja joins the room
[22:18:45] RjS leaves the room
[22:22:19] Mirja leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[22:41:31] Mirja joins the room
[22:59:23] Mirja leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[23:03:19] Jim Fenton leaves the room