Tuesday, March 9, 2021< ^ >
francesca has set the subject to: IETF 109
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[02:02:11] kiran.ietf joins the room
[08:13:40] kiran.ietf leaves the room: I'm not here right now
[11:55:50] tenghardt leaves the room
[15:32:35] Yoshiro Yoneya_ joins the room
[15:32:40] francesca joins the room
[15:33:08] francesca has set the subject to: IETF110 -
[15:39:44] Meetecho joins the room
[15:50:03] Francesca Palombini_web_527 joins the room
[15:50:03] Fernando Gont_web_549 joins the room
[15:50:03] Rüdiger Volk_web_513 joins the room
[15:50:03] Lorenzo Miniero_web_172 joins the room
[15:50:03] Michael Jenkins_web_705 joins the room
[15:50:03] Hernâni Marques_web_922 joins the room
[15:50:40] Pete Resnick_web_746 joins the room
[15:52:45] Andrew Campling_web_957 joins the room
[15:53:08] <Pete Resnick_web_746> We really could use a minute taker.
[15:53:32] <Michael Jenkins_web_705> I will help. I don't really know what's being discussed tho
[15:53:36] Stephen Farrell_web_947 joins the room
[15:53:52] <francesca>
[15:53:58] <Michael Jenkins_web_705> cool
[15:54:00] Alessandro Amirante_web_720 joins the room
[15:55:28] Samuel Weiler_web_215 joins the room
[15:55:35] John Klensin_web_591 joins the room
[15:55:48] John C Klensin joins the room
[15:55:52] Keith Moore_web_320 joins the room
[15:55:52] Dirk Hugo_web_599 joins the room
[15:56:01] sftcd joins the room
[15:56:18] Cullen Jennings_web_482 joins the room
[15:56:22] Kirsty Paine_web_204 joins the room
[15:56:34] Dirk Hugo_web_599 leaves the room
[15:56:44] Jean Mahoney_web_283 joins the room
[15:57:04] <Kirsty Paine_web_204> I can also help with minutes
[15:57:11] Marco Tiloca_web_364 joins the room
[15:57:13] Rikard Höglund_web_157 joins the room
[15:57:53] mcr joins the room
[15:57:57] Harald Alvestrand_web_535 joins the room
[15:58:01] Greg Wood_web_744 joins the room
[15:58:13] <mcr> I take it that John's RFC2028 does not have an associated draft?
[15:58:19] Lars Eggert_web_242 joins the room
[15:58:25] hta joins the room
[15:58:29] Michael Richardson_web_465 joins the room
[15:58:31] <francesca> correct
[15:58:41] Kenneth Murchison_web_414 joins the room
[15:58:58] Dan Harkins_web_581 joins the room
[15:59:02] Robert Sparks_web_570 joins the room
[15:59:06] Alexey Melnikov_web_953 joins the room
[15:59:18] <mcr> (since I guess, he questions whether we should even attempt to fix things)
[15:59:33] <Pete Resnick_web_746> That is part of the topic of discussion. :-)
[15:59:40] Jim Fenton_web_143 joins the room
[15:59:42] Alissa Cooper_web_979 joins the room
[15:59:51] Monika Ermert_web_709 joins the room
[15:59:53] Eric Orth_web_296 joins the room
[15:59:56] Monika Ermert_web_709 leaves the room
[16:00:00] Cullen Jennings_web_482 leaves the room
[16:00:03] Bron Gondwana_web_859 joins the room
[16:00:06] John Levine_web_248 joins the room
[16:00:14] Cullen Jennings_web_631 joins the room
[16:00:30] Joey Salazar_web_681 joins the room
[16:00:33] Wes Hardaker_web_986 joins the room
[16:00:36] joins the room
[16:00:39] Monika Ermert_web_257 joins the room
[16:00:49] Michael Richardson_web_465 leaves the room
[16:00:50] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305 joins the room
[16:00:50] Francesca Palombini_web_527 leaves the room
[16:00:55] Francesca Palombini_web_423 joins the room
[16:00:55] Michael Richardson_web_784 joins the room
[16:00:56] Daniel Gillmor_web_126 joins the room
[16:01:06] Juliana Guerra_web_198 joins the room
[16:01:08] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> yeah, I won't attempt to take notes much today, have just enough awake to try to keep making sense
[16:01:09] <sftcd> I hear Francesca but not Pete
[16:01:11] Eric Rescorla_web_888 joins the room
[16:01:15] <Andrew Campling_web_957> Has Pete lost sound?  
[16:01:26] Robert Wilton_web_843 joins the room
[16:01:38] Mirja Kühlewind_web_235 joins the room
[16:01:43] Matthew Miller_web_870 joins the room
[16:01:45] dkg joins the room
[16:01:45] Ben Campbell_web_576 joins the room
[16:01:51] <Andrew Campling_web_957> He looks happy though
[16:02:02] Pete Resnick_web_746 leaves the room
[16:02:15] Vittorio Bertola_web_459 joins the room
[16:02:27] Pete Resnick_web_592 joins the room
[16:02:35] Niels ten Oever_web_438 joins the room
[16:02:39] Dominique Lazanski_web_611 joins the room
[16:02:54] Rich Salz_web_322 joins the room
[16:03:00] Lixia Zhang_web_956 joins the room
[16:03:03] Suzanne Woolf_web_173 joins the room
[16:03:23] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Can't hear Pete
[16:03:24] <francesca> can't hear you Pete
[16:03:52] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> Echo, echo
[16:04:11] Umberto Fattore_web_275 joins the room
[16:04:16] <Ben Campbell_web_576> Pete: You are introducing echo when others speak
[16:04:23] Lixia Zhang_web_956 leaves the room
[16:04:25] Colin Perkins_web_291 joins the room
[16:05:22] Eliot Lear_web_906 joins the room
[16:05:24] Umberto Fattore_web_275 leaves the room
[16:05:27] Henk Birkholz_web_820 joins the room
[16:05:46] <Eliot Lear_web_906> Good morning, good afternoon, good evening
[16:06:08] Victor Kuarsingh_web_922 joins the room
[16:06:35] Julien Maisonneuve_web_886 joins the room
[16:06:50] Bernie Hoeneisen_web_421 joins the room
[16:07:29] Eve Schooler_web_960 joins the room
[16:07:38] Charles Eckel_web_552 joins the room
[16:09:02] <John C Klensin> "presentation" = "rant"
[16:09:39] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @Eliot 3am is never "good"
[16:09:58] <Eliot Lear_web_906> Good point
[16:10:10] <Andrew Campling_web_957> Love the sonar ping
[16:10:20] <Keith Moore_web_320> thanks for joining, Bron, as well as to anyone else up at odd hours
[16:12:24] Valery Smyslov_web_472 joins the room
[16:14:09] Pete Resnick_web_592 leaves the room
[16:14:29] Pete Resnick_web_555 joins the room
[16:15:12] Peter Koch_web_824 joins the room
[16:15:25] <sftcd> I'm not clear on the downside of the "continue to ignore" option (other than purity)
[16:16:23] <Keith Moore_web_320> IMO the structure of IETF and related organizations is too opaque and poorly documented, so I think some kind of revision is appropriate.   whether that's an RFC or some other kind of document is something that could be debated.
[16:16:51] Nicklas Pousette_web_176 joins the room
[16:17:06] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> +1
[16:17:08] Mike English_web_371 joins the room
[16:17:14] <dkg> I'm often met by confused stares from people when i try to explain these organizations and their relationships; but the people who give me blank stares are not going to be *unconfused* by a revised RFC.
[16:17:43] <Keith Moore_web_320> downside = someone has to do the work, and it might be controversial
[16:17:47] <Jim Fenton_web_143> sftcd: I'm uncomfortable with having something out there that is just plain wrong, but I'm not clear on whether we need to replace it or not.
[16:19:02] <Andrew Campling_web_957> Downside also = undermines credibility of other IETF publications if not corrected.
[16:19:06] <dkg> maybe that's accurate :)
[16:19:15] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> Replace it with
[16:19:34] <sftcd> When was the last time some other body paid attention to 2028 I wonder?
[16:19:36] <Jim Fenton_web_143> I don't see how making it historic makes us look silly.
[16:20:06] <> @dkg: isn't the real problem that the relationships are baffling, rather than the documentation is baffling?
[16:20:17] <Andrew Campling_web_957> Prospective authors would need a fair bit of organisational knowledge (or access to it) to replace it
[16:20:28] <Keith Moore_web_320> ekr: that's certainly a big part of the problem
[16:20:36] <dkg> indeed.  the blank stares are coming from inter-human conversation, not reading RFC 2028
[16:20:42] <sftcd> revising this isn't worth the trouble IMO
[16:20:50] <Colin Perkins_web_291> Isn't this all documented on the website anyway?
[16:21:02] <> I basically agree that we shouldn't revise this doc. This is what the Web is good for
[16:21:05] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> I might volunteer...
[16:21:18] <> Not everything needs to be rendered in 72 column ASCII and given an RFC #
[16:21:38] Ole Jacobsen_web_817 joins the room
[16:21:43] <Jim Fenton_web_143> Yeah, the dynamic nature of organizations is not well represented by an immutable document.
[16:21:49] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> +1 to Bron
[16:22:12] <Andrew Campling_web_957> +1 to Bron's point - this is part of the diversity problem too
[16:22:15] <Keith Moore_web_320> IMO we need to do a better job of making the structure apparent not only to newcomers but to everyone.  (I've been here 30+ years and can't keep track any more).   But publishing an RFC is effectively a way of hiding the information.   RFCs should be for details, not so much for presenting basic information.
[16:22:16] <Rich Salz_web_322> our organizations are not dynamic.  WG's are and maybe even Areas, but the relationship among iab nomcom etc has been set for years
[16:22:20] <John C Klensin> @ekr: if the organization is baffling, that is another problem that we ought to fix.  And this document is either part of the problem or part of the solution, depending on whether it is accurate.  Otherwise, "baffling" is a powerful bar to entry/ newcomers
[16:22:24] <sftcd> -1 organisations with org-chart as #1 thing tend to be awful - any counterexamples?
[16:22:44] Valery Smyslov_web_472 leaves the room
[16:22:46] <mcr> wow, dispatch to IESG is new. I like it :-)
[16:22:49] Valery Smyslov_web_909 joins the room
[16:22:50] <> I agree that it's an obstacle to newcomers
[16:22:57] Nicklas Pousette_web_176 leaves the room
[16:23:13] <Niels ten Oever_web_438> The Tao is up to date afaik
[16:23:19] <Jim Fenton_web_143> @Rich But over the lifetime of this document we have had various responsibilities allocated to the IAOC, LLC, Secretariat, etc.
[16:23:22] <Niels ten Oever_web_438> Else I am happy to update the Tao
[16:23:31] <sftcd> is this a proposal to reorganise the IETF or to document the current organisation?
[16:23:41] <sftcd> (not that those really differ in practice)
[16:23:50] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Document the current organization, I hope!
[16:23:50] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> As a minimum, option #2 should be pursued. When approaching the IETF a few years ago, I found this document and thought that it was a valid reference for these things.
[16:23:51] <Pete Resnick_web_555> The latter AFAICT.
[16:24:11] Nicklas Pousette_web_215 joins the room
[16:24:16] <Rich Salz_web_322> @Jim: like IASA2?  anything smaller than that is below the cutline IMO
[16:24:18] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> agree with sftcd, this view that we aren't a real SDO because we do things informally is exactly what "official" SDOs want everyone to believe
[16:24:36] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_235> We don't really a good approach how to update anything on the ieft webpage unfortunately because someone also has to decide about the changes made there
[16:24:52] <> FWIW, I don't find W3C or IEEE significantly less baffling
[16:24:56] <mcr> so, if it's a living document, then what's is amending formula?
[16:24:59] <francesca> (side thought) this question is coming up a lot: are RFCs a good way to store evolving information about IETF?
[16:25:02] <John C Klensin> @Alissa: Yes, and the condition of this document reinforces that view
[16:25:04] Suzanne Woolf_web_173 leaves the room
[16:25:29] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> I don't think this document has anything to do with it.
[16:25:33] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> surely some if it's in contracts between the various orgs
[16:25:59] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> damn, I really can't write right
[16:26:03] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> zzz
[16:26:10] <sftcd> really, when was the last time anyone here read that RFC or knows of someone who read it expecting such an old thing to be accurate?
[16:26:16] <> also, as with many things, the formal definitions, while important, are often not what newcomers need. As a concrete example, if you wanted to explain to people how TLS worked, you wouldn't want to start with 8446
[16:26:26] Richard Barnes_web_283 joins the room
[16:26:30] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> who does that?  Newcomers who see that it's still listed as current
[16:26:35] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> I did, for example
[16:26:48] <Rich Salz_web_322> It never occurred to me that anyone could see this as anything other than a documentation request, not a re-org effort.
[16:26:55] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> It's fine not to replace it with another RFC, though.
[16:26:55] <Keith Moore_web_320> agreed those are separate projects.   should be pursued independently
[16:27:15] <sftcd> @rich: documenting an organisation => changing it
[16:27:20] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @rich every documentation effort converts into a "it would be easier to change the org than document it"
[16:27:22] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> But please do not leave wrong information around - obsolete documents need to be obsoleted.
[16:27:26] <John Levine_web_248> All I heard was documenting existing practice, but I agree that's not always easy
[16:27:36] <Rich Salz_web_322> Disagree with @bron and @sftcd.
[16:27:43] <Keith Moore_web_320> ekr: "mediocrity is excellence at pursuing the mean"
[16:27:50] <Ben Campbell_web_576> In my experience, any attempt to document an organization's existing ends up trying to change those practices.
[16:27:53] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @rich yeah, there's a middle ground that my extreme caricature doesn't cover
[16:27:58] <mcr> we might not know how to explain the current practice well, but I think that we need to make sure we aren't documenting non-practice.
[16:28:00] <Ben Campbell_web_576> existing _practices_
[16:28:10] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @mcr +100
[16:28:42] <Keith Moore_web_320> mcr: +1 :)
[16:28:46] <> keith: I'm not quite following your response to me
[16:29:06] <mcr> <- how I, as a canadian, learnt about the US constitution.  We need this.
[16:29:21] <mcr> (not, by reading the US Constitution...)
[16:29:28] <sftcd> +1 to cullen: the energy required here isn't needed for editing text
[16:29:31] <Peter Koch_web_824> 2028 is a BCP, but in noway normative for the process; looks a bit like an FYI (way back then); don't think I'd miss it except for the historic snapshot
[16:30:12] <Keith Moore_web_320> ekr: sorry.   basically I think that if we look to other organizations to decide what we should do, that's one possible way to lose because we're paying less attention to what we should do.   doesn't mean we can't learn from others' experience of course, nor that we shoudl reinvent the wheel.
[16:30:16] Dominique Lazanski_web_611 leaves the room
[16:30:24] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> I would separate the todo list in three items:1) obsoleting this doc -> easy2) documenting current practices -> harder3) changing current practices -> even if it could make sense, it's clearly out of scope for this discussion.So we should do 1 and perhaps 2 if someone volunteers.
[16:30:56] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> (why does this chat support line breaks when typing but not when displaying the message?)
[16:31:21] <> keith: I wasn't suggesting we look to other organizations.
[16:31:26] <mcr> Given our relative lack of enthusiasm for doing the work, is this something which we can reasonably entrust to paid staff (Greg...) to do "documenting current practices"?
[16:31:28] <Keith Moore_web_320> ekr: ok
[16:31:33] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> 100% agree we should fix what newcomers and other SDOs look at
[16:31:59] <Jim Fenton_web_143> If the website is impenetrable, fix it there, don't write an RFC about it.
[16:32:14] <Keith Moore_web_320> mcr: I often suspect we are leaving too much to staff and that perhaps such descriptions should be maintained by IETF participants, maybe as a moderated wiki or something similar
[16:32:15] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> we have no data about who reads which documents, or even who downloads them. or how many people download them. we only have data about how many people visit web site pages and how they arrive at which pages.
[16:32:34] <dkg> mcr: producing a version of "schoolhouse rock" does deserve the attention of paid staff
[16:32:52] <sftcd> +1 to alissa: and even if we did have data on downloads they don't have to download from us
[16:32:54] <Jim Fenton_web_143> @Alissa I hope you're not arguing that we should add a bunch of analytics
[16:33:24] <Keith Moore_web_320> alissa: it's tempting to want such analytics though there are certainly privacy issues to consider
[16:34:12] <mcr> screw analytics, let's make it active content so that we do eye tracking :-)
[16:34:26] <John C Klensin> Keep in mind this document is fairly high-level and perhaps should be even higher-level
[16:34:30] <Keith Moore_web_320> mcr: just skip to brain implants for everyone :)
[16:34:34] <sftcd> fwiw, my dispatch conclusion: prefer to continue ignoring; ok with making historic; very opposed to attempted revision
[16:34:46] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> I'm arguing that conjecture about who reads what or how people learn things about the IETF should not be confused with facts.
[16:35:04] <Keith Moore_web_320> alissa: certainly agree
[16:35:14] <Andrew Campling_web_957> @Keith - or just use the chips in the Covid vaccines?  ;-)
[16:35:30] <Jim Fenton_web_143> The other question is whether a newcomer would even notice that it had been made Historic (or even revised, for that matter).
[16:35:55] <mcr> I propose: fix web site, and in the process of doing that, we'll have a bunch of references/anchor pointers.  That should drive any thoughts about obsoleting any bits. But, lets drive it that way.
[16:35:56] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> Personally I think analytics and qualitative data about RFC readership would be valuable, but they don't exist.
[16:36:15] <Eliot Lear_web_906> +1 to Alissa.
[16:36:16] <sftcd> what keith says is part of why I'd prefer to continue ignoring it: we should have some glaring inconsistencies :-)
[16:36:19] <dkg> Alissa Cooper_web_979: those are tough to gather, given the wide mirroring of the RFCs
[16:36:19] Oliver Borchert_web_879 joins the room
[16:36:21] <> +1 to Alissa
[16:36:50] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> sorry - forgot to leave Q
[16:37:33] <Keith Moore_web_320> sftcd: :)
[16:38:18] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> Google probably knows
[16:38:36] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> or at least, some AI running in Google somewhere probably knows
[16:38:42] <sftcd> is dirty cutlery worse or better than bad analogies? :-)
[16:38:45] Michael Richardson_web_784 leaves the room
[16:38:50] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> I think outdated menu with prices from 1996 is slightly better analogy ;-)
[16:38:50] <dkg> i'm missing who the health inspector is in this analogy
[16:38:55] <Eliot Lear_web_906> It's clear that it is safe to go to eat with Andrew.
[16:39:34] <Peter Koch_web_824> we're not using dirty cuttlery - there's one  25 year old menu somewhere between the seats
[16:39:57] <sftcd> isn't there usually chewing gum between the seats?
[16:40:08] <Keith Moore_web_320> it's stuck to the menu
[16:40:25] <Peter Koch_web_824> now you're sharing too much re your choice of restaurants :-)
[16:40:26] <Jean Mahoney_web_283> Many RFCs reference RFC 2028 because it was was part of the "Intellectual Property Statement" boilerplate back in the day:
[16:40:33] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> I think the concern is if we can get agreement on is if we use soap or UV light to clean stuff
[16:40:37] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> +1
[16:41:15] <Andrew Campling_web_957> +1 to what Wes just said
[16:41:29] <Rich Salz_web_322> agree it's not hard to do a rewrite.  well, you have to put your ego aside, which might actually make it hard for this group.
[16:41:41] <Peter Koch_web_824> so, the refs should have pointed to BCP 11 rather than RFC 2028?
[16:41:49] <Ben Campbell_web_576> @cullen: lasers
[16:41:50] <sftcd> -1 to Wes, Alexey is right there's wishful thinking that revising this'd be easy/worthwhile
[16:41:54] <Jean Mahoney_web_283> BCP 11 == RFC 2028
[16:42:08] <Keith Moore_web_320> I think the problem with a rewrite is what you do when you find conflicts or ambiguities at the boundaries between different organizations' responsibilities.   simply documenting the conflict/ambiguity might be a way forward, even if it's embarrassing
[16:42:15] Jonathan Hoyland_web_905 joins the room
[16:42:23] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> @sftcd: you missed the part where we remove anything where there is disagreement.
[16:42:31] <Jean Mahoney_web_283> The boilerplate does point at BCP 11
[16:42:32] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> specific fail state == remove
[16:42:50] <dkg> so we dispatch to draft-iab-embarassing-internal-inconsistencies-of-the-ietf
[16:42:51] <hta> wes, if we remove anything where there's disagreement, we're left with a blank page. This is the IETF, after all!
[16:42:54] <sftcd> @Wes: people will find disagreement leaving no text at all
[16:42:56] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> I'd urge caution about suggesting a new "page" on the web site as opposed to reviewing the existing information and how it is organized on the web site and making suggested changes consistent with the existing information on the site.
[16:43:18] <> Let's just have a new page that is the content of 2028 :)
[16:43:20] Benjamin Kaduk_web_970 joins the room
[16:43:33] Benjamin Kaduk_web_970 leaves the room
[16:43:33] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> If we always fail to find consensus here, then all RFCs would be blank pages.
[16:43:36] Daniel Gillmor_web_126 leaves the room
[16:43:36] <Keith Moore_web_320> IMO we absolutely need for the web site to present at least a simplified version of this clearly.   I could see that an RFC might still be appropriate just to nail down the details.
[16:43:37] Benjamin Kaduk_web_891 joins the room
[16:43:40] Daniel Gillmor_web_955 joins the room
[16:43:46] <sftcd> we could add 2,028 different web pages and let people randomly pick which to read?
[16:44:00] <> We'd need another 20 pages!
[16:44:03] Benjamin Kaduk_web_891 leaves the room
[16:44:03] Nicklas Pousette_web_215 leaves the room
[16:44:04] <Keith Moore_web_320> sftcd: you mean like the RFC index?
[16:44:11] Benjamin Kaduk_web_762 joins the room
[16:44:22] Benjamin Kaduk_web_762 leaves the room
[16:44:37] John Levine_web_248 leaves the room
[16:45:09] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Ask fewer questions in the poll!
[16:45:18] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> most of the 2028 content seems like it is already covered in the tao
[16:45:45] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> one of these days we will move beyond the "hands in a room" paradigm and allow for a multiple choice
[16:45:49] Benjamin Kaduk_web_884 joins the room
[16:46:03] Benjamin Kaduk_web_884 leaves the room
[16:46:07] Benjamin Kaduk_web_782 joins the room
[16:46:09] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> collect results a LOT faster than this faff
[16:46:13] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> Possibly in the jabber so we can see it.
[16:46:29] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> "I want to obsolete the document in some way, and pause there"
[16:46:31] <dkg> multiple choice has a whole different set of problems
[16:46:34] <> I actually have no idea why the tool cannot do this
[16:46:47] <dkg> do you let people check more than one box?
[16:46:51] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @dkg yes
[16:46:52] <sftcd> meh!
[16:46:52] <dkg> do you let them rank them?
[16:47:01] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> I'm sure that this tool was built exactly following the specification that someone gave to Meetecho
[16:47:01] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> no, same as with hands
[16:47:06] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> @ekr: there is no consensus on what a good tool looks like :-P
[16:47:06] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> But no idea who gave it
[16:47:10] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> This has been discussed to death on various mailing lists.
[16:47:11] <hta> ni!
[16:47:21] <Ben Campbell_web_576> ah, they moved the tool icon since last time...
[16:47:29] <Keith Moore_web_320> eki eki eki whooo ping!
[16:47:32] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @Vittorio yep - UI design by internet drafts has shown itself to be excellent
[16:48:15] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> in fact we published the spec and solicited feedback on it.
[16:48:46] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> yep, and now we're doing the running code bit and seeing how slow it is!
[16:48:50] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> ahh well
[16:48:58] <Keith Moore_web_320> basic truth of UI design: you never know what you want until you see what you get.   (but I'm fairly happy with meetecho and appreciate the work that's gone into it)
[16:49:04] <francesca> For the minutes: "I think it's best not to do anything" - 4 for, 29 against, 59 total
" I want to at least mark the doc as obsolete or historic" - 34 for, 0 against
[16:49:08] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> "I want to replace it with a new RFC"
[16:49:14] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> "I want to replace it with a new web page"
[16:49:19] <sftcd> +q
[16:49:25] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> "I want to replace it with some pointers to other web pages or information"
[16:49:29] <> Perhaps the tool could have multiple modes!
[16:49:42] <Keith Moore_web_320> the choices should not be mutually exclusive
[16:49:48] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> "Do nothing beyond marking this document as historic"
[16:50:01] <francesca> thanks Jeffrey
[16:50:20] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> </learned by chairing part of the C++ committee>
[16:50:41] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Cullen: I think the choice is whether the draft is published (as an RFC) or not (web page)
[16:50:49] <Peter Koch_web_824> wouldn't the reclassification to 'Historic' usually involve an RFC giving the reasoning anyway?
[16:50:55] <Keith Moore_web_320> and "web page" should not be assumed to be singular
[16:50:58] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> @Peter: yes
[16:51:07] <hta> "web site"?
[16:51:08] <sftcd> @peter: not necessarily IIRC
[16:51:21] <Peter Koch_web_824> thus 'usually'
[16:51:21] <dkg> people have implied that this document is soemthing for newcomers; that it is for use by contacts for other SDOs; that it is a way to prove our validity as an organization for folks who are evaluating whether to take the IETF seriously
[16:51:27] <dkg> these are radically different goals
[16:51:46] <dkg> and claiming that we can replace this document with a pointer to a single webpage doesn't solve each of those problems.
[16:51:47] <> I find it dubious that at this point any document will prove our validity
[16:52:05] <dkg> i didn't claim that any document (including RFC 2028) succeeded at any of these goals.
[16:52:18] <sftcd> aren't we even syntactically valid?
[16:52:32] <mcr> @ekr, I think that pointing to this confusion is a red-herring used by IETF-haters to justify their position.  Fixing our document doesn't make them hate less.
[16:52:44] <hta> people who are out to question our validity will do that no matter what we do. We need to do what's good for our friends, not for our enemies.
[16:52:47] <> @mcr: yes
[16:52:55] <Keith Moore_web_320> hta: agree
[16:53:53] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> I tend to agree with Alissa: new page versa augmenting is not that important for this meeting
[16:53:59] joins the room
[16:54:13] <Keith Moore_web_320> agree with Alissa that we don't need to specify this in detail, though I do sometimes think that our current web site isn't really designed with IETF participants in mind
[16:54:49] <Jim Fenton_web_143> isn't datatracker really the website for participants?
[16:54:57] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> if our governance changes so fast that it needs to be a living document then we're doing something wrong
[16:54:58] <John C Klensin> @Hta: from experience, there are also people who would like to be our friends, who then try to understand how we are organized and how decisions get made, get frustrated, and either dismiss us or go away.  Neither of those latter groups imply "enemies", just people or groups who lose interest in working with us.
[16:55:18] <dkg> and the tao *has* been updated more recently, thanks to Niels
[16:55:30] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> yes, the tao web site recently had its regular update thanks to Niels and Kathleen
[16:55:38] <hta> I was with Eve right up to "as part of our RFC series".
[16:55:39] <Keith Moore_web_320> Jim: sort of but this doesn't seem like the right material for the data tracker.   (hopefully our structure doesn't change that quickly that we need a data tracker to keep track of it)
[16:55:48] <John C Klensin> And pointing them to something the length and level of detail of the Tao is just a different way of saying "we have big barriers to entry and like it that way".
[16:55:50] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> Bron: a living document doesn't need to be updated often, just not be updated via an "Updated by: 3668, 3979, 8717" header.
[16:56:13] <Keith Moore_web_320> or maybe IETF is just a game of Calvinball?
[16:57:16] <Keith Moore_web_320> we can indeed hear you :)
[16:57:18] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> We can hear you Rüdiger
[16:57:33] <dkg> Keith Moore_web_320: the IETF is *definitely* calvinball
[16:58:02] <mcr> Alas, the reference to CalvinBall dates most of us.
[16:58:04] Jim Fenton_web_143 leaves the room
[16:58:27] <Keith Moore_web_320> mcr: I like it when people know the classics.
[16:58:48] <mcr> It is a classic. it might even be required reading to understand the IETF.
[16:58:49] <dkg> if you're not turning on the younger generation to C&H you're doing adulthood wrong
[16:59:13] sftcd suggests "I want to so *something*" is always likely to win
[16:59:18] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> I'm proud that my youngest (18) would very much have gotten the reference.
[16:59:21] <mcr> My kid knows C&H inside out, but has yet to bite into HHGG :-(
[16:59:21] <Eliot Lear_web_906> anyone raising their hands should be volunteering to write the beasst
[16:59:40] bhoeneis joins the room
[17:00:05] Dominique Lazanski_web_417 joins the room
[17:00:06] <bhoeneis> I am not sure whether the question was clear
[17:00:07] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> anyone wants to switch to get perfect parity? :)
[17:00:17] RjS joins the room
[17:00:22] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> well, the way to do it is to just write something inaccurate and take complaints
[17:00:37] <dkg> and complaints and complaints and complaints…
[17:01:00] <Ben Campbell_web_576> @eliot: Sounds like we need a "how bad do you want to raise your hand" feature "-)
[17:01:02] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Eliot has a point
[17:01:10] <Keith Moore_web_320> one possible result could be: (a) recommend updating the web site, and (b) a revised draft will be evaluated (by someone, maybe not gendispatch) once it exists but volunteers are welcome to collaborate on one
[17:01:15] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> "I think people might actually read it" gotta be the most optimistic statement I've heard all night
[17:01:34] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> we appear to be an hour in
[17:01:51] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> on a 20 minute agenda item
[17:01:54] <dkg> yes, time check -- we're halfway through the meeting, still on the first topic
[17:02:12] <francesca> ack
[17:02:13] <sftcd> @bron: so imagine the fun if people do want to do something here?
[17:02:15] <John C Klensin> FWIW, Eliot's comment was more or less where I started.  If no one is willing to do the work, conclusions about what to do are almost irrelevant (that, of course, applies to web page content as well as RFCs
[17:02:15] Rüdiger Volk_web_513 leaves the room
[17:02:15] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> no worries the second topic is completely uncontroversial
[17:02:38] <Eliot Lear_web_906> :smiley:
[17:02:46] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> :)
[17:02:47] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> everyone wants the website updated - the question being "should it be updated to reflect what a draft says"
[17:02:49] <dkg> Alissa Cooper_web_979: ha ha -- i wonder where people are rat-holing on this to reduce time for the second topic
[17:02:54] <Andrew Campling_web_957> :dizzy_face:
[17:02:56] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> draft == RFC even
[17:03:06] <Peter Koch_web_824> 'i want web pages' doesn't have the same consequences implied as 'i want an rfc', though ...
[17:03:24] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> +1 to John
[17:03:31] RjS leaves the room
[17:03:42] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> this whole rat hole is "should RFCs define the facts which the website then reflects or should the website be normative"
[17:04:02] <sftcd> I was one of the 2 on the last question: my logic being better web pages are fine, but not solely due to this concern
[17:04:06] <Keith Moore_web_320> web site doesn't need the same level of detail, I hope
[17:04:17] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> I think we need a draft, even if we just end up with the website update
[17:04:31] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[17:04:47] <Richard Barnes_web_283> pretty sure Alissa *just* said that consensus is inimical to web pages
[17:04:48] <Keith Moore_web_320> reason to do the web page is not to make it easier, so much as to make the information more accessible
[17:04:51] <Andrew Campling_web_957> The webpage wont write itself though
[17:05:37] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> let's make the HTTP working group do it - they do "web" stuff
[17:05:50] Mark Nottingham_web_142 joins the room
[17:06:22] mnot joins the room
[17:06:33] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> I do think that if someone had a concrete proposal of what an updated RFC would look like, you might have very different results
[17:07:01] <hta> Cullen, the bad thing about the RFC is that in 25 years we'll be back here again.
[17:07:11] <Pete Resnick_web_555> @Cullen: Yeah, I wonder who the chicken is who will produce that egg, to abuse metaphors.
[17:07:44] <francesca> ******* Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF ****** (for the jabber logs)
[17:08:13] <Andrew Campling_web_957> I'd add diversity of thought to this list - it's implied but not stated
[17:08:26] <Keith Moore_web_320> good point
[17:08:52] <mnot> Apple already participates.
[17:09:44] Matthew Miller_web_870 leaves the room
[17:09:45] <Rich Salz_web_322> ISWYDT, @mnot
[17:09:47] <Jonathan Hoyland_web_905> Language
[17:09:50] <Andrew Campling_web_957> All of these points )+ others) contribute to a broad set of barriers to entry
[17:10:26] Harald Alvestrand_web_535 leaves the room
[17:10:29] Joey Salazar_web_681 leaves the room
[17:10:32] Joey Salazar_web_742 joins the room
[17:11:29] Joey Salazar_web_742 leaves the room
[17:11:33] Michael Jenkins_web_705 leaves the room
[17:11:36] Michael Jenkins_web_550 joins the room
[17:11:49] <dkg> some organizations are motivated by the points that fernando categorized under "individual" or independent participants
[17:11:49] sftcd leaves the room
[17:12:01] sftcd joins the room
[17:12:04] <Keith Moore_web_320> dkg: true
[17:12:21] Rüdiger Volk_web_453 joins the room
[17:12:37] Joey Salazar_web_745 joins the room
[17:13:04] <sftcd> while being aware of our shortcomings, we should be aware many other similar organisations require US$250k/year or similar to get to the table
[17:13:15] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> do we have many situation where people feel the consensus call was wrong ?
[17:13:26] <dkg> which people?
[17:13:31] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> anyone
[17:13:39] <dkg> people who are turned off by the process aren't counted in the consensus call
[17:13:45] <Keith Moore_web_320> sftcd: oh sure, but ietf has always tried to be open
[17:13:46] <Jonathan Hoyland_web_905> Presumably people who weren't there, given that if they were there they could have objected.
[17:13:55] <Keith Moore_web_320> dkg: right.
[17:14:03] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> I like citing for this slide's topic.
[17:14:03] <Andrew Campling_web_957> The "distributed" processes are pretty baffling to newcomers (and potential participants)
[17:14:07] <Keith Moore_web_320> Cullen: hopefully few, but not nonexistent and not unimportant
[17:14:24] <dkg> that's the classic way to "win" in a consensus group: obnoxiousness and stamina until everyone else has fled :(
[17:14:35] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> consensus by fatigue :p
[17:14:57] <dkg> Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305: yes, exactly
[17:14:57] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> there's also "consensus by fiat" of course
[17:15:11] <Andrew Campling_web_957> Some of the preferred tolls seems needlessly obscure, serve as barriers to entry / participation
[17:15:20] <John C Klensin> Except that sometimes, when people speak up, the response is to question their motives and other behavior rather than addressing the substance of the objections.  And Bron, consensus by exhaustion (not just fatigue) is what that is all about.
[17:15:23] <Andrew Campling_web_957> *tools
[17:15:24] <Cullen Jennings_web_631> Keith: agree but we good to be data driven on what the high order bits of the problem to solve are
[17:15:38] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> I do wonder how we will measure success.  by the perceived level of additional access to (various modes) of participation vs. a measured result.  For the record, attempting to engineer a result is a difficult thing to succeed at (IMO)
[17:15:39] <Pete Resnick_web_555> IMO, we've had a number of consensus decisions that active participants felt did not accurately reflect consensus. But they do appear to be the significant minority.
[17:16:26] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> requiring people to "speak up or shut up" is also discouraging for people from several soft-spoken cultures.
[17:16:30] Joey Salazar_web_745 leaves the room
[17:16:35] Joey Salazar_web_723 joins the room
[17:16:54] <sftcd> available time is IMO the biggest economic constraint
[17:17:32] <Pete Resnick_web_555> @sf: +1
[17:17:49] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> yeah, time and timezones!  There's plenty of stuff I'd do more of it I lived in the "when more people are awake".  Losing sleep for a few weeks per year is OK, but much more than this and it gets really unhealthy
[17:17:52] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> I am not sure its the biggest, but in top 3 for sure (IMO)
[17:18:01] <dkg> for the meetings, even when all remote, timezones are another constraint not mentioned in the draft
[17:18:01] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> (it's already really unhealthy)
[17:18:27] <dkg> Bron++
[17:18:30] <sftcd> @bron: timezones are a different issue - lack of ability to devote time due to economic reasons is very different
[17:18:47] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> yes, it's true - I shouldn't conflate the two
[17:18:48] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> they both suck
[17:18:50] <dkg> but for synchronous meetings, tz deserves an explicit callout
[17:18:59] <Andrew Campling_web_957> The educational constraints don't always appear to extend to knowledge of the operational realities, especially in non-US markets  
[17:19:14] <sftcd> sure, but IMO TZ is both easier to handle and impossible to handle (fully)
[17:19:19] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> timezone is a bigger issue to manage during remote participation.  when attending, its less of an issue.
[17:19:39] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> outside of jetlag
[17:19:48] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> yeah, then it's just jetlag and travel time
[17:19:50] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> the timezone issue is actually a strong argument in favour of physical meetings :)
[17:19:53] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> "just"
[17:19:54] <dkg> Victor Kuarsingh_web_922: jetlag is significant -- it compounds the economic costs
[17:19:56] <Keith Moore_web_320> like calvinball :)
[17:20:04] Joey Salazar_web_723 leaves the room
[17:20:07] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> I guess YMMV
[17:20:19] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> airmileage
[17:20:37] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> On the dispatch question, the W3C has an "Inclusion and Diversity Community Group" at that focuses on this topic. CGs are lighter-weight than Working Groups, but I think it indicates that an IETF Working Group is probably a reasonable place to put this.
[17:20:37] <Andrew Campling_web_957> The discussion on "bad terms" highlighted a strongly US-centric cultural perspective too
[17:20:38] <sftcd> If the dispatch outcome here were to try start a thing to remove economic barriers to participation that might be a good one (not that I'm sure that's tractable tbh)
[17:20:44] Roman Danyliw_web_564 joins the room
[17:21:29] <Rich Salz_web_322> The IETF has "education mentoring and outreach" which could be like the W3C group.  But it's in flux right now, hence "could be"
[17:21:37] <sftcd> but overall this topic isn't ready to dispatch I think but work should be continued
[17:21:39] <Rich Salz_web_322> (The EMO directorate)
[17:21:44] <> I
[17:21:52] <> I'm trying to figure out what's actionable here
[17:21:58] Corinne Cath_web_659 joins the room
[17:22:15] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> ^^ agree with ekr
[17:22:49] <Victor Kuarsingh_web_922> but I do think there is a problem we need to pay attention to
[17:22:57] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> mailing list as another option
[17:23:40] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> Is an IAB Program plausible? It seems like the scope is potentially larger than what WGs usually look at. E.g. the idea of changing fees.
[17:23:44] <Dan Harkins_web_581> IETF is downstream so there's only so much we can do to "improve diversity"
[17:23:44] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> how many things do we want to change at once?  The more things you change at once, the harder it is to determine if any particular intervention was effective
[17:24:09] Charles Eckel_web_552 leaves the room
[17:24:14] <Richard Barnes_web_283> this sure smells like ocean-boiling.  "we can't possibly do anything until we understand all the dimensions of the problem in great detail"
[17:24:18] <John C Klensin> Maybe mailing list and iff it leads to anything other than a conclusion that there are problems, an IETF 111 BOF?
[17:24:35] Roman Danyliw_web_564 leaves the room
[17:24:52] <sftcd> wrt mailing list there is already, last used ~~3 years ago
[17:24:56] Richard Barnes_web_283 leaves the room
[17:25:03] <> So, mission accomplished
[17:25:04] Richard Barnes_web_119 joins the room
[17:25:59] <Dan Harkins_web_581> anyone want to express a goal for "diversity"?
[17:26:02] Eliot Lear_web_906 leaves the room
[17:26:12] Eliot Lear_web_224 joins the room
[17:26:56] <Rich Salz_web_322> I'll assume good intent and not treat "a few problematic phrases" as an attempt by Andrew to be demeaning.
[17:27:25] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @rich, that would be the right thing to do
[17:27:26] <francesca> yes, thanks Dan, Fernando and Keith will talk more about proposals in the next slides, but please jump to the mic if you have questions or comments about the problem statement
[17:27:27] <Andrew Campling_web_957> @Rich that is indeed correct, apologies if it didn't come across that way
[17:28:02] <Rich Salz_web_322> I appreciate the clarification Andrew.
[17:28:09] Roman Danyliw joins the room
[17:28:18] <dkg> or because you are caring for kids, or elders
[17:30:26] Lorenzo Miniero_web_172 leaves the room
[17:30:29] Alessandro Amirante_web_720 leaves the room
[17:30:31] Lorenzo Miniero_web_862 joins the room
[17:30:34] Alessandro Amirante_web_625 joins the room
[17:30:38] <dkg> to keith's point about diversity vs inclusion: trying to just increase diversity can also decrease inclusivity: you could go for "diversity of thought" and try to include and elevate really offensive viewpoints, which would make the environment remarkably more inclusive.
[17:30:42] <sftcd> this is IESG territory not IAB IMO
[17:30:46] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> there's no point being diverse if we spend all our time thinking about being diverse and not working on improving the internet
[17:31:10] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> then we're just a social club
[17:31:24] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> (cue the "you mean antisocial club" jokes)
[17:31:46] <sftcd> and groucho marks jokes
[17:31:49] <dkg> Bron Gondwana_web_859: i don't think anything in this draft is suggesting that this is the only work worth doing, any more than arguments about DNS privacy are meant to keep the IETF from advancing the state of HTTP
[17:31:55] <sftcd> and groucho marx jokes
[17:32:07] <Pete Resnick_web_555> @jeffrey/@sf: Again, we shouldn't let structure or name drive how we dispatch: If we need something that looks more like an IAB program but under the IESG, that might be OK.
[17:32:32] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @Pete Ok, but we need to update the website to reflect that structure :p
[17:32:41] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> and/or a new RFC
[17:32:46] <Pete Resnick_web_555> heh
[17:32:58] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> #everythingisinterconnected
[17:33:07] <sftcd> @pete: to me this is all about the standards process and hence defo IESG
[17:33:18] <Pete Resnick_web_555> ack
[17:33:25] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> @sf: That's plausible to me.
[17:34:08] <> Uh, I don't seem to be in the queue
[17:34:10] <> but I am trying to be
[17:34:15] <dkg> you are, ekr
[17:34:16] <francesca> you are ekr
[17:34:17] <Niels ten Oever_web_438> Since identity is not static and multidimensional, I doubt whether quantitative analysis can ever be an end-all for this problem. I also don't think there is a solution, it is something communities need to keep working on.
[17:34:34] <> OK, not sure how I got kicked out because I was ahead of Barnes
[17:34:36] <> whatever
[17:34:39] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> +1 Richard
[17:36:01] <Pete Resnick_web_555> @ekr: I hope I didn't accidentally kick you. If I did, my apologies. You're up next.
[17:36:09] <> i think you may have, but no worries
[17:36:21] <Dominique Lazanski_web_417> +1 Kirsty
[17:36:28] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> I selected against attending IETF for many years because I heard it was a bunch of greybeards yelling at clouds
[17:36:36] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> but I got older and started yelling at clouds myself...
[17:36:39] Simon Hicks_web_169 joins the room
[17:36:44] <sftcd> ekr is still in queue in my browser
[17:36:50] <Corinne Cath_web_659> +1  Kirsty
[17:36:51] <> i am now
[17:36:52] <> Bron: but do you have a beard?  (and if so, is it grey?)
[17:36:54] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> good story Bron
[17:36:59] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> it's getting there
[17:37:08] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> more so after tonight
[17:37:25] Joey Salazar_web_334 joins the room
[17:37:32] <Pete Resnick_web_555> I may have bumped him before when I was kicking someone else who didn't remove themselves from the queue.
[17:37:34] <Richard Barnes_web_119> @kaduk the beard does not have to be literal
[17:37:42] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> (I've posted the story to a mailing list somewhere before - pretty much Pete and Alexey convinced me it was worth coming)
[17:37:43] <Fernando Gont_web_549> FWIW, part of the motivation of this document is indeed to get input from that community
[17:37:46] Alessandro Amirante_web_625 leaves the room
[17:37:50] Alessandro Amirante_web_447 joins the room
[17:38:00] <sftcd> @pete: it's probably ok - ekr ends up in the queue in most IETF meetings I attend:-)
[17:38:06] <francesca> queue is cut after dkg
[17:38:16] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> not that I tick any diversity boxes except maybe "Australian"
[17:38:39] <Richard Barnes_web_119> yeah, it seems like a WG / mailing list that spins out action items is roughly the right shape here
[17:38:48] Joey Salazar_web_334 leaves the room
[17:39:01] <mnot> +1 to an initial mailing list, with potential to revisit when it has progress. That mailing list should be moderated / operate under a code of conduct, however.
[17:39:19] <francesca> sorry Wes queue is cut
[17:39:53] <francesca> I'd like to get the authors to get through the slides and resume discussion after that
[17:39:57] Joey Salazar_web_605 joins the room
[17:40:00] <Wes Hardaker_web_986> <guides hat>This is long overdue and has been pointed out to me by a lot of newcomers that have attended and given the guides program feedback</guides hat>
[17:40:02] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305> +1 pay them.
[17:40:02] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @dkg, how have we kept out people?
[17:40:03] <Niels ten Oever_web_438> +1 dkg
[17:40:15] <Richard Barnes_web_119> dkg, as usual, on point
[17:40:23] <mnot> +1 dkg
[17:40:28] <Kirsty Paine_web_204> +1 to external perspectives analysing this problem
[17:40:34] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> +1 dkg
[17:40:35] <Simon Hicks_web_169> we can engage with other SDOs and learn from them
[17:40:36] <Corinne Cath_web_659> + 1 to not for free and not fun
[17:40:46] <Andrew Campling_web_957> +1 to being organisationally uncomfortable  
[17:41:13] <Dan Harkins_web_581> ahh, making people uncomfortable will do wonders for diversity!
[17:41:41] <Simon Hicks_web_169> I put the IETF secretariat in contact with another SDO for example that had gone through a similar problem
[17:41:46] <Kirsty Paine_web_204> it also implies you are not already uncomfortable with the status quo, which I am
[17:41:57] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @Dan being uncomfortable is great - at least that's what I told my BodyPump class tonight when I made them do the second set of 16 pushups
[17:41:58] <dkg> Dan Harkins_web_581: i'm not claiming intentional discrimination (i'm also not not claiming it).  but read the set of stumbling blocks for participation listed in the draft and ask yourself if that really encourages participation from a wide range of participants.
[17:42:21] <Simon Hicks_web_169> most of our employing organisations are in other SDOs. We can exchange experiences and learn
[17:42:34] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> being uncomfortable intentionally and within planned constraints is the best time to be uncomfortable
[17:42:38] <sftcd> IIRC the existing mailing list did tackle a few things but got bogged down in individual people's bugbears - but I may be recalling wrong - anyway that'd imply a list but with some direction/leadership or meetings a Keith suggested
[17:42:56] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @dkg, the pool of people who come to IETFs come from a larger pool that we really have little control over.
[17:43:14] <Dan Harkins_web_581> been to a university lately? Seen the CS dept?
[17:43:28] <sftcd> @dan: it's not all about control though
[17:43:47] <dkg> Dan Harkins_web_581: i agree with the "pipeline problem" analysis, and i also don't think it explains everything that we have room to address (nor should it)
[17:43:51] <Dan Harkins_web_581> if we can't control it then we can't influence the outcome.
[17:43:53] <sftcd> and oddly, I've not been to a physical CS dept for a year:-)
[17:43:56] <Richard Barnes_web_119> @Dan the IETF's numbers are worse than pretty much any comparable, on pretty much any metric
[17:43:58] <dkg> and, i don't see what the IETF is doing to try to address the pipeline problem.
[17:43:59] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> regardless, let's not wait to do the terminology group until this one is done
[17:44:06] <sftcd> @dan disagree - influence doesn't require conrol
[17:45:04] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @richard, this work attracts type-a personalities that are pedantic.
[17:45:15] <Dan Harkins_web_581> we're not gonna be diverse by definition.
[17:45:19] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> is this a "6 year term"?  That seems long
[17:45:21] <Dan Harkins_web_581> other orgs may be different.
[17:45:28] John Levine_web_562 joins the room
[17:45:46] <dkg> and have time, and are proficient in english, and have thick skins, and are used to being able to bully their way through bureaucratic obstacles
[17:45:50] <Richard Barnes_web_119> @Dan you might ask why it is that only pedantic type-A personalities succeed here
[17:46:04] <Corinne Cath_web_659> and have greybeards
[17:46:07] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> that's a chicken vs egg problem!
[17:46:07] <Richard Barnes_web_119> and there you might find some of the root causes
[17:46:19] <dkg> Richard Barnes++
[17:46:27] <sftcd> did the greybeard appear on the chicken or the egg?
[17:46:45] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> I think it's a side effect of road crossing
[17:47:02] <sftcd> the egg then, ok:-)
[17:47:06] <Lars Eggert_web_242> this part seems like a completely separate issue, and it would be good to tease those discussions apart
[17:47:07] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @richard, because the work attracts them. Protocol nitty-gritty attracts those people
[17:47:11] Joey Salazar_web_605 leaves the room
[17:47:14] <Corinne Cath_web_659> they appear everywhere, that seems to be the issue..
[17:47:37] <Richard Barnes_web_119> @dan plenty of people do nitty-gritty work in more diverse organizations
[17:48:00] <mnot> Survivorship bias comes to mind...
[17:48:06] <Dan Harkins_web_581> OK, so what are we doing that is making us so bad on the diversity scale then?
[17:48:18] <Richard Barnes_web_119> @dan - that's exactly the question!
[17:48:20] <Dan Harkins_web_581> what are other orgs doing better?
[17:48:22] Joey Salazar_web_202 joins the room
[17:48:31] <sftcd> it costs too much in $$/time to meaningfully participate
[17:48:39] <John C Klensin> At least for eggs and others with inclinations toward beard growth, road crossing in the wrong location can turn almost anyonebeard grey -- got me when I was about 20
[17:48:40] <Richard Barnes_web_119> mnot++
[17:48:41] <> @Richard: though perhaps just reading the backscroll on this thread might yield a clue.
[17:48:42] <Dan Harkins_web_581> @sftcd, exactly!
[17:48:44] <sftcd> (but that's my bugbear:-)
[17:48:54] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> type-A tend to create new orgs too:  "if they don't like it they'll go create their own org", and some of those new orgs will succeed
[17:49:09] Cullen Jennings_web_631 leaves the room
[17:49:14] <Dan Harkins_web_581> so we're self-selecting even more. If you don't have the $$$ and time and the obsessive pedantic personality,....
[17:49:31] <Richard Barnes_web_119> telling that the fee is the only economic issue that comes to mind, vs. say child care
[17:49:37] <mnot> For some, it's not the money; we're cheaper than a lot of commercial conferences. It's the avalanche of information, the lack of organisation or guidance, and the confrontational nature of many encounters, IMO.
[17:49:48] <Pete Resnick_web_555> Re the presentation: We have been doing fee waivers for some time now. We just do it quietly.
[17:49:54] <sftcd> @dan: for the one millionth time: I'm not obsessive:-)
[17:49:57] <John C Klensin> @mnot: Yes.
[17:50:01] <Richard Barnes_web_119> yeah, a lot of these ideas are already in practice
[17:50:06] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> @pete if it's so quiet that potential users don't know it exists...
[17:50:10] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> In my experience, the social and cultural barriers are much higher than the economic ones (which I'd say are among the lowest across all SDOs)
[17:50:13] <Dan Harkins_web_581> :-)
[17:50:16] <Richard Barnes_web_119> not to say that it might not be bad to codify them as recommendations, cf. github
[17:50:33] <sftcd> @vittorio: but you (and I) don't really suffer the ecomonic barriers much
[17:50:58] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> Yes, indeed economic barriers are an issue for many, in particular for those from developing countries
[17:51:02] <mnot> How many meetings do people think it takes for someone to become productive here?
[17:51:15] <Dan Harkins_web_581> we are a northern hemisphere body-- we seem to meet mostly above the equator-- and discriminate against those in the southern hemisphere.
[17:51:20] Yoshiro Yoneya_web_196 joins the room
[17:51:34] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> There are several dimensions that need to be addressed
[17:51:40] <sftcd> IMO economic barriers are also a barrier to the vast majority of people who could contribute usefully for all countries
[17:52:00] <sftcd> (note: I said could, not would)
[17:52:23] <John C Klensin> Depends on how good the person is at listening and observing... and whether they are on mailing lists before attending meetings.  I've occasionally seen productivity after one or two meetings, but not often.
[17:52:38] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> I don't think there are many orgs that let you participate in all meetings remotely for free, though. On the other hand, remote participation is generally and inherently not on an equal footing.
[17:52:38] <mnot> JcK: agreed. Those people are unusual.
[17:52:47] Victor Kuarsingh_web_922 leaves the room
[17:53:15] Joey Salazar_web_202 leaves the room
[17:53:28] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> @mnot: define productive?
[17:53:45] <Jonathan Hoyland_web_905> Which are the most diverse SDOs?
[17:53:51] <mnot> contributing to drafts (their own or others) in a somewhat substantial (not just one-time) way.
[17:54:04] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> I.e. "being productive contributor" versa "being able to publish an RFC".
[17:54:05] <Alissa Cooper_web_979> why not use the existing
[17:54:06] <Jonathan Hoyland_web_905> (Not restricting ourselves to internet standards.)
[17:54:21] <sftcd> +1 to just re-use list but don't care much
[17:55:04] <John C Klensin> @mnot: at the other extreme, I've seen people who have attended all meetings for several years  and are still not productive (but, as Alexey pointed out, there are questions about how that term is defined)
[17:55:21] <mnot> JcK: nod.
[17:55:27] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> I've met people who are counterproductive...
[17:55:34] <sftcd> isn't far off
[17:55:46] <Vittorio Bertola_web_459> "Productive" is a thorny concept, because people often naturally tend to think that contributions they agree with are productive, while contributions they disagree with are not productive.
[17:55:52] <mnot> Let's assume they *want* to contribute in a positive way.
[17:56:08] <Dan Harkins_web_581> :clap:
[17:56:23] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> hopefully that's almost everyone
[17:56:31] <Bron Gondwana_web_859> (unless they just like going to Prague)
[17:56:36] <sftcd> Lars gets his excuses in early:-)
[17:57:23] Ole Jacobsen_web_817 leaves the room
[17:57:35] Ben Campbell_web_576 leaves the room
[17:57:36] John Levine_web_562 leaves the room
[17:57:38] Rich Salz_web_322 leaves the room
[17:57:39] Dan Harkins_web_581 leaves the room
[17:57:40] <Eliot Lear_web_224> thank you!
[17:57:41] Robert Wilton_web_843 leaves the room
[17:57:42] Eve Schooler_web_960 leaves the room
[17:57:42] Stephen Farrell_web_947 leaves the room
[17:57:42] Greg Wood_web_744 leaves the room
[17:57:43] Eric Orth_web_296 leaves the room
[17:57:43] Mark Nottingham_web_142 leaves the room
[17:57:43] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_305 leaves the room
[17:57:43] Mike English_web_371 leaves the room
[17:57:44] Kirsty Paine_web_204 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Vittorio Bertola_web_459 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Alissa Cooper_web_979 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Keith Moore_web_320 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Francesca Palombini_web_423 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Lars Eggert_web_242 leaves the room
[17:57:45] Colin Perkins_web_291 leaves the room
[17:57:46] Robert Sparks_web_570 leaves the room
[17:57:46] Marco Tiloca_web_364 leaves the room
[17:57:47] Jonathan Hoyland_web_905 leaves the room
[17:57:48] Jean Mahoney_web_283 leaves the room
[17:57:48] Eliot Lear_web_224 leaves the room
[17:57:48] <Alexey Melnikov_web_953> Thank you all!
[17:57:48] Andrew Campling_web_957 leaves the room
[17:57:48] Juliana Guerra_web_198 leaves the room
[17:57:49] Yoshiro Yoneya_web_196 leaves the room
[17:57:50] Richard Barnes_web_119 leaves the room
[17:57:51] Benjamin Kaduk_web_782 leaves the room
[17:57:52] Julien Maisonneuve_web_886 leaves the room
[17:57:52] John Klensin_web_591 leaves the room
[17:57:52] Alexey Melnikov_web_953 leaves the room
[17:57:52] Valery Smyslov_web_909 leaves the room
[17:57:53] Rikard Höglund_web_157 leaves the room
[17:57:55] Oliver Borchert_web_879 leaves the room
[17:57:55] Lorenzo Miniero_web_862 leaves the room
[17:57:58] francesca leaves the room
[17:57:59] Peter Koch_web_824 leaves the room
[17:58:03] John C Klensin leaves the room
[17:58:06] Dominique Lazanski_web_417 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Fernando Gont_web_549 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Hernâni Marques_web_922 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Samuel Weiler_web_215 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Kenneth Murchison_web_414 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Bron Gondwana_web_859 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Wes Hardaker_web_986 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Monika Ermert_web_257 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Eric Rescorla_web_888 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Mirja Kühlewind_web_235 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Niels ten Oever_web_438 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Henk Birkholz_web_820 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Bernie Hoeneisen_web_421 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Pete Resnick_web_555 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Daniel Gillmor_web_955 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Michael Jenkins_web_550 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Rüdiger Volk_web_453 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Corinne Cath_web_659 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Simon Hicks_web_169 leaves the room
[17:58:11] Alessandro Amirante_web_447 leaves the room
[17:59:35] Roman Danyliw leaves the room
[17:59:55] Yoshiro Yoneya_ leaves the room
[17:59:56] mnot leaves the room
[18:03:16] Meetecho leaves the room
[18:04:10] kiran.ietf joins the room
[18:07:24] leaves the room
[18:22:54] kiran.ietf leaves the room
[18:29:46] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[18:30:31] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[18:30:47] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[18:33:55] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[18:35:30] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[18:40:08] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[18:40:46] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[18:41:29] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[18:43:38] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[18:56:22] bhoeneis leaves the room
[20:20:50] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:23:06] dkg leaves the room: leaving
[20:38:40] zulipbot joins the room
[20:38:57] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:39:31] zulipbot joins the room
[20:39:52] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:42:32] zulipbot joins the room
[20:43:36] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:52:05] zulipbot joins the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!