Monday, July 18, 2016< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[13:29:49] Sean Turner joins the room
[13:30:16] Sean Turner has set the subject to: IETF 96 MTGVENUE WG
[13:35:06] S M joins the room
[13:37:33] Sean Turner leaves the room
[13:37:54] Yoav Nir joins the room
[13:39:21] Meetecho joins the room
[13:39:25] S M_8898 joins the room
[13:40:11] Sean Turner joins the room
[13:40:35] Sean Leonard joins the room
[13:41:52] Jonne Soininen joins the room
[13:43:51] John Klensin joins the room
[13:43:54] Daniel Burnett joins the room
[13:44:04] <Yoav Nir> I'll be the Jabber scribe
[13:44:12] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[13:44:18] <Jonne Soininen> Thanks Yoav!
[13:44:27] <Sean Leonard> Yes, can hear
[13:44:30] <John Klensin> Yes, I am not in the room
[13:44:32] Barry Leiba joins the room
[13:44:33] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[13:44:34] <Yoav Nir> If you want anything channeled to the room mic, just preface it with "mic:"
[13:44:53] <Yoav Nir> Also Sean Turner, I think.
[13:45:40] Alexa Morris joins the room
[13:45:44] <Yoav Nir> Now looking at the agenda slide
[13:45:56] <Sean Turner> ack
[13:46:36] Steve Donovan joins the room
[13:46:38] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[13:46:46] <Yoav Nir> Fred presenting without slides...
[13:47:25] Jordi Palet Martinez joins the room
[13:47:35] sureshk joins the room
[13:48:25] SM joins the room
[13:49:36] <Yoav Nir> Discussing whether we need something in the process document about moving a meeting
[13:50:11] <Yoav Nir> Ray at the mic
[13:52:47] <Yoav Nir> Ray says we're looking at backup locations for all future meeting venues
[13:53:05] <Yoav Nir> After a certain point in time, you can't move the meeting, only cancel or make it virtual
[13:53:45] <sureshk> @Yoav: Can you please let me know when Fred is about to finish
[13:53:56] <Yoav Nir> OK
[13:54:03] <sureshk> Thanks
[13:54:32] <Barry Leiba> Yoav at mic
[13:54:35] hildjj joins the room
[13:55:10] <Barry Leiba> Yoav: Do we really have a plan for actually having a virtual meeting?  Can't do it without a plan.
[13:56:28] <Yoav Nir> Jari at the mic
[13:56:43] <Yoav Nir> Answer is that we currently don't have a plan for "going virtual"
[13:57:16] <Yoav Nir> Alissa at the mic
[13:58:22] <John Klensin> Mic: (1) IIR, we actualy did move at least one meeting, although not at the last minute (the "Asia-Pacific to Vancouver" switch and this discussion should remember that.  (2) Unless doing a meeting entirely remotely is not considered a viable option, Fred's comment, that I interpret as "we could think about that if we need to", is not adequate -- not only does that community need to have plans for that as a contingency, but a document like this needs to discuss the conditions and/or mechanisms for making the determination that is necessary.
[13:59:04] <hildjj> Hiroshima was also the result of a move
[14:00:00] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[14:01:56] <Yoav Nir> (If you want anything channeled to the room mic, just preface it with "mic:")
[14:03:14] <John Klensin> Dave Crocker just nicely summarized the point I was trying to make -- it was _not_ about anything unreasonable or secret happening, any region being unfairly treated, etc.
[14:04:28] <Yoav Nir> What would we have done if this week's meeting was planned for Istanbul instead of Berlin?
[14:04:35] <Yoav Nir> Tobias Gondrom at the mic
[14:04:49] <Yoav Nir> Nalini at the mic
[14:06:20] <Andrew Sullivan> The problem with this analogy is that part of disaster planning is for, "How do you prevent yourself from being so negatively affected that you go out of business?"  We don't go out of business if we don't have a meeting, because meetings are a tool for our business, which is producing documents
[14:06:23] <Yoav Nir> Mary Barnes at the mic
[14:06:56] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[14:09:02] <Yoav Nir> Fred's done
[14:09:10] <Yoav Nir> Suresh now
[14:09:42] <Yoav Nir>
[14:10:03] <Yoav Nir> Seeing slides 2 and 3 now
[14:10:08] Alexa Morris_7264 joins the room
[14:11:08] <Sean Leonard> planned unfortunateness ~ "plan for misfortune"?
[14:12:33] <John Klensin> There is no such thing as a "ealy plane" ride anymore, at least an international one involving the US at either end.  And many coutries seem ty be trying (or considering trying) to "catch up".
[14:13:22] <Andrew Sullivan> probably in the context "easy" meant "a couple hours rather than 13"
[14:13:40] <John Klensin> More to the point, if nearby meetings were really the goal, a three-way plan is not nearly encough categories (as Buenos Aires proved).  And an asterisk does not help.
[14:14:19] <Yoav Nir> @John: for me there's a huge difference between a 3-hour flight to Prague, a 12-hour flight to the US, and a 5 + 12 hour flight to SE Asia
[14:15:29] <Yoav Nir> But it's true that a meeting in Atlanta is no more "local" to someone in California than Prague is local for me
[14:16:05] <Yoav Nir> Looking at slides 6 and 7 now
[14:17:12] <Yoav Nir> Jari at the mic again
[14:17:54] Yoav Nir leaves the room
[14:18:03] Yoav Nir joins the room
[14:18:13] <Yoav Nir> Fred Baker at the mic
[14:19:29] <John Klensin> @Yoav: that was more or less my point, and you can add in the flight from Tokyo or Beijing to Adelaide or even Dehli, much less one from any of those places to, e.g., Johannesburg.
[14:21:20] <Yoav Nir> Dave Crocker @ the mic
[14:22:28] <Yoav Nir> If "Asia" includes both Japan and Turkey or Russia, then it pretty much wraps around half the world
[14:24:41] <John Klensin> Turkey is an intresting example in a different respect.  As a though experiment, what would have happened if this week's weeting had been scheduled for Istanbul.  If the events of last week had occurred a week earlier, would the meeting have been cancelled/moved/postponed/ taken virtual?  If they had occured after side meetings had already started, would the answer have been different?   Would a Dallas meeting a few weeks ago or Paris or Brussels meetings more recently been different if the timing was equally bad?  I don't have answers, only a strong feeling that we'd better be thinking about such issues well before the problme arises.
[14:26:31] <Andrew Sullivan> The basic problem with attempting to optimize for "something disastrous happens in $city" is that anywhere in the world today that can accommodate us is more or less axiomatically also a target for some of these kinds of event
[14:27:12] <Yoav Nir> By what Ray said, a week before the meeting "moved" is out. For "taken virtual" we don't have any plan. "Postponed" is meaningless for something that happens every four months anyway. So I guess cancelling is the only thing to do, along with encouraging chairs to schedule virtual interims.
[14:28:14] <Andrew Sullivan> I think the idea of an entirely virtual meeting is a plan for absurdity, unless we change the meaning of "meeting"
[14:29:09] <Yoav Nir> I don't think it we would cancel a meeting in Paris or Dallas. Brussels had strong issues in that the airport closed, but you could still get there by flying nearby and taking a train. So I don't think we would cancel that either
[14:29:14] <Andrew Sullivan> I think Ray may be equivocating on the term "participating"
[14:29:37] FJB joins the room
[14:29:47] <SM> Local attendance figures
[14:29:54] <Andrew Sullivan> I suspect that under the right circumstances, the meeting would be cancelled for you: people wouldn't come
[14:30:12] Simon Pietro Romano joins the room
[14:30:26] <Yoav Nir> Alissa at the mic
[14:30:48] <John Klensin> @Mic: Ray, counting the f2f presence of actual participants is fine -- that is entirely consisstent with what Dave described as reactive-- counting "registrations" or "attendance"  is less interesting, especially if the people involved have not actually participated before and do not participate later.  We need to be careful not to confuse what is easy to measure with the metrics of actual interest.
[14:33:29] Dhruv Dhody joins the room
[14:34:32] <Yoav Nir> D Crocker @ the mic
[14:36:59] <Yoav Nir> (Jari and Pete lining up...)
[14:37:05] <Andrew Sullivan> So, I showed up at my first meeting and suddenly found myself a document author
[14:37:12] <Andrew Sullivan> Just as a point of information
[14:37:24] <Andrew Sullivan> My first IETF meeting was 64, in case that's informative too
[14:37:31] <Andrew Sullivan> We have these anecdotes, and no data
[14:37:36] <Yoav Nir> As another point of information, I had RFC 4478 published before attending my first IETF meeting
[14:37:40] <John Klensin> Or, Fred, when it (appear at meeting, start producing documents) does happen, it is usually a mistake.  There are, however, important exceptions and making rules would be really bad news.
[14:39:02] <Yoav Nir> Jari at the mic
[14:40:10] <FJB> I showed up at my first full-week meeting and came home with two document assignments. I think that's unusual.
[14:40:30] <John Klensin> @Yoav, there are actually a lot of cases of people actively participating, generating drafts, etc., before coming to their first meeting.  When that occurs, it is usually immensely effective for both the IETF and the individual.   With regard to the IETF-as-IETF, even I did it that way. But, again, it points out the importance of being clear about what we are talking about, not just making decisions based on what is easy to measure (like one-meeting f2f attendance figures)
[14:41:58] <SM> John, agree to the one-meeting attendance figures.
[14:42:05] <Yoav Nir> Pete at the mic
[14:44:29] ben joins the room
[14:44:56] <Andrew Sullivan> The reason the room doesn't seem to be supporting outreach via meeting is not because there's no desire to get the new perspectives, but because we don't  have any evidence at all that the meeting in a new place causes any injection of those different perspectives
[14:44:58] resnick joins the room
[14:45:04] <Barry Leiba> Christian O'Flaherty at mic
[14:45:11] <Barry Leiba> Harald at mic
[14:45:16] <Yoav Nir> @John, I'm not even sure what we should optimize for when seeking new contributors. We can be looking for people who will participate for many years, writing documents in multiple working groups across multiple areas and chairing working groups. OTOH we can get people who are interested in one thing, who will work on one document, and then go away. There were a few of these who came for HTTP/2 and we don't see them anymore. I don't going to a certain location will get us any of the second category.
[14:45:31] <John Klensin> FWIW, we've had two consecutive speakers who have announced their names as >indecipherable mumble".  
[14:45:46] <ben> @Andrew: I just met a brand new draft author. From Argentina.
[14:46:38] <Andrew Sullivan> As I've said on the list, we also don't have any evidence that it does _not_ do that injection.  We basically have no data, because we're reporting on things that we find easy to measure instead of measuring things we need to understand
[14:47:07] <SM> Andrew, it is measures for historic reasons
[14:47:14] <Barry Leiba> John, the woman who commented before Christian was from an organization called "Article 19".
[14:47:24] <Barry Leiba> (I think she said her name is Catherine)
[14:47:30] <Andrew Sullivan> @SM: No, we really don't collect the data we need to do this properly
[14:47:30] <SM> Barry Corinne Cath
[14:47:33] <ben> @Andrew: ACtually, I was responding to your message one back (about your first meeting.) T
[14:47:43] <Andrew Sullivan> ah, that one :)
[14:47:53] Sean Turner leaves the room
[14:48:01] <ben> Just a coincidence that also fit your next message :-)
[14:48:09] Sean Turner joins the room
[14:48:13] <Andrew Sullivan> I am nothing if not single track
[14:48:33] <SM> Andrew, yes, and how to fix that gets into what to collect.
[14:51:43] <John Klensin> @Barry, of course, historically, if someone stood up and said somethign that sounded like "I represent <organization>", we would have been considering mandatory re-education.  :-(
[14:52:45] <Andrew Sullivan> @John: I think that horse sailed under the bridge some while ago
[14:56:27] <John Klensin> @? (your name came through in a very faint yellow type that doesn't have enough contrast for me to I read -- another accessibility issue).  Yes, I agree about sailing horses (and other metaphors) but the increasing gap between principles we claim and our actions-in-practice are high on the lst of reasons why, when I'm asked about the future of the IETF, I sometimes say very negative and/or pessimistic things.
[14:56:54] <Yoav Nir> Tobias at the mic
[14:57:26] <Yoav Nir> @John: that's Andrew Sullivan
[14:59:04] <Andrew Sullivan> Also @John: I don't know how to make type I send change the colour on your end — i don't think I've ever chosen yellow for anything
[15:00:19] <Yoav Nir> Interestingly, your name comes out in bright yellow for me too. I'm using PSI as a client
[15:02:22] <John Klensin> Putting that on my "Meetecho list".   Bright yellow would be fine but, at least in my environment with Meetecho, I get the sort of very pale yellow that makes it clear there are chacters there but make them impossible to read.
[15:04:18] <Yoav Nir> Next up, Andrew Sullivan presenting
[15:04:32] ben leaves the room
[15:04:32] ben joins the room
[15:17:52] <John Klensin> @Mic: One of the problems with "not until four or five years from now" is that it has often seemed to be an excuse for not doing something the community wants or, more generally, "no change because it is too far away to consider"
[15:18:06] <John Klensin> That desn
[15:19:10] <John Klensin> That doesn't make it less real, but we need to be a lot more careful about it than we have been in the past.  It is also a reason why it is important that the IAOC be more forthcoming about hotel/venue contracts and what is being negotiated.
[15:21:43] <Yoav Nir> Nalini Presenting
[15:23:15] OtherAndrew joins the room
[15:23:42] <OtherAndrew> Sorry, just joining with another account to ask John whether I still show up in yellow
[15:24:00] <OtherAndrew> (might tell me whether it's related to the client or to the server I'm coming through)
[15:24:07] <Yoav Nir> To me it looks green this time
[15:24:19] <Yoav Nir> But I'm not on Meetecho
[15:24:21] <hildjj> it's the receiving client.
[15:24:42] <hildjj> some clients, such as Psi, assign a different color to each participant, based on the order they join.
[15:24:54] <hildjj> and yes, yellow is horrible.
[15:25:02] <Meetecho> yep, that's what we do in the Meetecho web UI as well
[15:25:11] <Meetecho> and what John was referring to
[15:25:33] <SM> Meetecho, drop yellow as a color?
[15:25:34] <Andrew Sullivan> Got it, thanks
[15:25:40] OtherAndrew leaves the room
[15:26:00] <hildjj>
[15:26:14] <Meetecho> SM: I guess we'll have to drop all colors whose R, G and B values tend too much towards the "bright"
[15:26:14] <Meetecho> we'll have to look into this
[15:26:26] Jordi Palet Martinez leaves the room
[15:26:26] Jordi Palet Martinez joins the room
[15:26:32] <SM> Meetecho, UI/UX choices
[15:26:40] <Meetecho> ack
[15:27:30] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[15:28:34] <John Klensin> @"Other Andrew".   From your other client, and my seeing chat in Meetecho, I see you in a rick, easily-read, purple.   @Meetecho: probably, yes.  Also, color differentiation is worth a lot less with many participants, than with only a fwe (think aobut plenaries).
[15:30:22] <Andrew Sullivan> In the interests of time, I won't get up, but I thought the basis for the where-we'd-go decision came from I-D and RFC submissions.  But there is the basic problem that you can't measure where email submitters are
[15:30:56] <Andrew Sullivan> and so we don't really have a way of knowing where IETF participants who read or write to (or both) mailing lists are
[15:31:07] <SM> Andrew, how do you measure where attendees come from?
[15:31:20] <Andrew Sullivan> that's easy.  It's part of their registration data
[15:31:25] <Meetecho> John Klensin: makes sense, yes, although not all rooms have a lot of participants; we'll think about a way to address that
[15:31:29] <SM> Which is not validated?
[15:31:39] <Andrew Sullivan> I mean, they can lie about it, but if so that's I think less problematic
[15:31:55] <SM> Andrew, agreed, like people whom you know
[15:31:56] <resnick> @ajs: Geography of chairs and other active participants on mailing lists who don’t have current drafts are certainly taken into account (and that’s a good thing.)
[15:32:26] <Andrew Sullivan> I don't want to get The Truth.  I want to get truthy enough that we approximate the distribution of what people tell us about themselves
[15:32:58] <resnick> @ajs: You anti-platonist.
[15:33:05] <Andrew Sullivan> but mailing list participation isn't something that can tell us that at all, unless we survey everyone (and our response rate on surveys is pretty bad),
[15:33:22] <Yoav Nir> I never know whether people who are citizens of country A but work in country B should fill out country A or country B on that form
[15:33:47] <SM> Yoav, ask on the attendees list:)
[15:34:24] <John Klensin> We have a bit of a vocabulary problem -- I've been using "participation" in a way that may be a synonym for Dave's "contributing", and as distinct from "registering", "showing up at a meeting", "lurking on a mailing list"   Dve abd U are ub remarkable agreedment about the principles in this discussion.
[15:35:03] <John Klensin> ... to the point that I could probably have gone to DNSOP wihtout loss of informatin here.
[15:35:45] <Yoav Nir> I'm offended that "jabber scribing" is not on her list :-)
[15:36:58] <John Klensin> @Yoav: +1
[15:39:40] <John Klensin> While I certainly agree about the importance of cultural diversity to the IETF and its workings, we beed ti remember that  a culturally-sensitvie IP layer would violate almost every principle we summarize as "dumb network"  Scary idea for an Internet-style network.
[15:39:48] ben leaves the room
[15:40:16] <Yoav Nir> IMO if Andrew Sullivan is removing "Maximal attendance" and "Geographic outreach" from the list of goals, measuring the effectively of the outreach (which is what Nalini's draft is doing) is out of topic for this group
[15:40:37] <Andrew Sullivan> Not necessarily
[15:40:53] <Andrew Sullivan> But I can point out on list why
[15:41:08] Barry Leiba leaves the room
[15:41:08] resnick leaves the room
[15:41:30] Jonne Soininen leaves the room
[15:41:40] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[15:41:43] Yoav Nir leaves the room
[15:41:46] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[15:41:57] SM leaves the room
[15:42:02] Alexa Morris_7264 leaves the room
[15:42:02] Simon Pietro Romano leaves the room
[15:42:02] John Klensin leaves the room
[15:42:19] Meetecho leaves the room
[15:46:45] FJB leaves the room
[15:47:12] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[15:49:01] hildjj leaves the room
[15:52:56] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[15:53:16] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[15:58:50] Sean Turner leaves the room
[16:03:05] hildjj joins the room
[16:04:00] hildjj leaves the room
[16:04:18] ben joins the room
[16:05:38] hildjj joins the room
[16:09:40] ben leaves the room
[16:15:30] hildjj leaves the room
[16:15:45] hildjj joins the room
[16:16:43] FJB joins the room
[16:16:55] hildjj leaves the room
[16:23:37] FJB leaves the room
[16:27:00] tale joins the room
[16:27:29] Andrew Sullivan joins the room
[16:27:42] Andrew Sullivan leaves the room
[16:47:23] Jonne Soininen joins the room
[17:10:04] FJB joins the room
[17:14:01] Jonne Soininen leaves the room
[17:22:54] tale leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[17:44:14] tale joins the room
[18:24:34] sureshk joins the room
[18:35:31] sureshk leaves the room
[18:58:36] sureshk leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!