[13:58:30] Meetecho joins the room
[13:59:10] Christian Huitema joins the room
[14:03:09] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[14:03:41] brong joins the room
[14:04:04] John C Klensin joins the room
[14:05:00] Bob Hinden joins the room
[14:05:00] Henk Birkholz joins the room
[14:05:00] Stuart Cheshire joins the room
[14:05:00] James Galvin joins the room
[14:05:00] Michael StJohns joins the room
[14:05:00] Jeffrey Yasskin joins the room
[14:05:00] Eliot Lear joins the room
[14:05:00] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[14:05:00] Jim Schaad joins the room
[14:05:00] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[14:05:01] Christian Huitema_196 joins the room
[14:05:01] Yoshiro Yoneya_927 joins the room
[14:05:27] Richard Barnes joins the room
[14:05:31] Lucy Lynch joins the room
[14:05:44] Wes Hardaker joins the room
[14:05:48] Lucy Lynch leaves the room
[14:05:51] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[14:05:57] Ole Trøan joins the room
[14:05:58] Richard Barnes joins the room
[14:06:00] Michael Breuer joins the room
[14:06:06] Sandy Ginoza joins the room
[14:06:07] Lucy Lynch joins the room
[14:06:15] Brian Rosen joins the room
[14:06:21] Joel Halpern joins the room
[14:06:27] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[14:06:37] John Klensin joins the room
[14:06:41] Jari Arkko joins the room
[14:06:41] adrianfarrel joins the room
[14:06:48] Jay Daley joins the room
[14:07:05] Ole Troan joins the room
[14:07:18] Dominique Lazanski joins the room
[14:07:27] Eric Gray joins the room
[14:07:29] Martin Thomson joins the room
[14:07:30] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[14:07:35] mnot joins the room
[14:07:45] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[14:07:52] Kenneth Murchison joins the room
[14:07:54] Eric Gray leaves the room
[14:08:01] Martin Thomson joins the room
[14:08:06] <Christian Huitema> Has audio started? I don't hear a thing.
[14:08:09] Stephen Farrell joins the room
[14:08:18] <Wes Hardaker> no one has said anything yet.
[14:08:22] <Eliot Lear> getting there
[14:08:42] <Dominique Lazanski> yes!
[14:08:44] <Lucy Lynch> faintly
[14:08:45] <Bob Hinden> Good morning
[14:08:57] Stephen McQuistin joins the room
[14:09:04] <Martin Thomson> Plenty clear for me.
[14:09:07] sftcd joins the room
[14:09:17] Colin Perkins joins the room
[14:09:33] Jared Mauch joins the room
[14:09:38] Michael StJohns leaves the room
[14:09:48] Michael StJohns joins the room
[14:09:50] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[14:09:54] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[14:09:59] Alice Russo joins the room
[14:10:22] Ben Campbell joins the room
[14:10:50] Ole Jacobsen joins the room
[14:10:55] John Levine joins the room
[14:10:57] <Joel Halpern> Can anyone else see Brian's shared video?  Or is it just my machine losing a video stream again?
[14:11:05] <mnot> "subtitle goes here" - is that a comment about this program?
[14:11:14] <Eliot Lear> ;-)
[14:11:14] Alexey Melnikov_827 joins the room
[14:11:23] Mike StJohns joins the room
[14:11:33] <Jim Schaad> I see no video for him
[14:11:36] Jon Peterson joins the room
[14:11:45] <brong> Brian is not sending audio
[14:11:51] <brong> yes we can hear you
[14:11:54] <Christian Huitema> yes we hear you
[14:11:55] <Joel Halpern> I can hear Eliot, but not Brian.
[14:11:57] <John Levine> wecan hear Eliott
[14:11:57] <sftcd> I see eliot's screen and subtitles but no audio/video for brian
[14:11:59] <Martin Thomson> I'm not getting video at all either, but then I'm in two rooms
[14:12:00] Alexey Melnikov_827 leaves the room
[14:12:01] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[14:12:07] Alexey Melnikov_118 joins the room
[14:12:08] alissa joins the room
[14:12:12] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[14:12:23] <Henk Birkholz> yes! more eliot video!
[14:12:25] alex-Meetecho joins the room
[14:12:28] <brong> people can turn off the video
[14:12:32] jon-ietf joins the room
[14:12:36] <brong> every person has a pause button over each stream
[14:12:36] <John Levine> worked fine in Dispatch this morning
[14:12:41] <brong> yes we can
[14:12:48] <Joel Halpern> Eliot's video is visible.
[14:13:13] Lars Eggert joins the room
[14:13:25] <James Galvin> individuals can turn off video receipt for themselves if it is troublesome for them.
[14:13:27] <brong> yeah sure
[14:13:29] <brong> I'll take notes
[14:13:30] <Brian Rosen> Not sending audio?  what am I doing wrong?
[14:13:39] Sean Leonard joins the room
[14:13:49] <brong> Brian: you need to click the "send audio" button
[14:13:51] <James Galvin> on each video stream there is a "pause" button, the usual kind of icon you'd expect
[14:14:03] <Jared Mauch> in the upper left - there's two mic buttons, try the one on the right.
[14:14:05] <brong> which looks like a microphone with a play
[14:14:10] ghwood@llc.ietf.org joins the room
[14:14:16] <Jared Mauch> the tooltips are in the center of the display..
[14:14:31] Dave Thaler joins the room
[14:14:41] John Levine_ joins the room
[14:14:44] <Ole Jacobsen> Looks like a CF :-)
[14:15:09] <Brian Rosen> i see no mic
[14:15:11] Russ Housley joins the room
[14:15:21] Pete Resnick joins the room
[14:15:30] <Henk Birkholz> @brian it's attached to the bull
[14:15:48] <Henk Birkholz> (i know... no bull there)
[14:15:50] <Michael StJohns> I don't know - usually standards making looks like a small group of people scrumming surrounded by a large group watching and occasionally throwing darts
[14:16:12] Brian Rosen leaves the room
[14:16:17] <Wes Hardaker> brian: make sure your web browser is permitting auto permissions
[14:16:21] <Wes Hardaker> audio
[14:16:21] <John Levine_> switching browsers often helps
[14:16:32] <jon-ietf> brian was doing fine two sessions ago *shrug*
[14:16:35] Pete Resnick (the other one) joins the room
[14:16:36] Brian Rosen joins the room
[14:16:39] <Ben Campbell> Brian spoke in dispatch this morning, so it worked _then_
[14:16:46] <Jared Mauch> left side you see ietf 180 rfcefdp - then your name, then 4 icons below that .. -- if you're using macos you may need to grant permission to the browser for mic, etc.. in the system settings.
[14:16:51] <Wes Hardaker> ditto shrug
[14:17:12] <Jared Mauch> reports were that Firefox + chrome worked but safari you may have issues.
[14:17:35] <Lucy Lynch> yes elliot
[14:17:36] <Joel Halpern> Yes, we can hear you.
[14:17:55] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[14:18:07] Martin Thomson joins the room
[14:18:13] <Brian Rosen> I was able to send audio in dispatch
[14:18:30] <Brian Rosen> I don't see any media options in my name under chair
[14:18:38] <Lucy Lynch> nit: It is housed in the IAB structures but it is a community program
[14:18:44] <Meetecho> Brian Rosen: you should have some icons in the box where your name is
[14:18:53] <Meetecho> In the top/left corner
[14:19:00] <Meetecho> Screen/Webcam/Mic icons
[14:19:18] <Ben Campbell> @Brian: are you in the same browser you used in dispatch?
[14:19:22] <Meetecho> Each of those will allow you to request the floor (or send right away, if you're a chair)
[14:19:24] <Brian Rosen> yes
[14:19:28] <Ben Campbell> (I keep accidentally using Safari)
[14:19:39] <Meetecho> If you're not seeing those, you may have an inconsistent UI, so rejoining might help
[14:19:40] Kenneth Murchison leaves the room
[14:19:41] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[14:19:43] <Brian Rosen> using firefox
[14:19:56] <Wes Hardaker> you have a mic icon now
[14:19:56] <brong> Brian Rosen: appears to be claimed to be sending video now
[14:19:58] <Wes Hardaker> so you likely can talk
[14:20:05] <brong> but I see a red 0kbps
[14:20:14] Rich Salz joins the room
[14:20:15] <Brian Rosen> I re-enterd  now sending 0 kbps
[14:20:29] <Martin Thomson> I see a lot of pale blue, with 480kbps, 259kbps, and 0kbps
[14:20:50] <Brian Rosen> firefox thinks I
[14:21:03] Henrik Levkowetz joins the room
[14:21:16] <Brian Rosen> I gave permission for camera and mic
[14:21:34] <Brian Rosen> yes 10 per Q
[14:21:34] <Mirja Kühlewind> try rejoining?
[14:21:56] Brian Rosen leaves the room
[14:21:59] <Meetecho> Brian Rosen: you can also try restarting Firefox, just to ensure it's not something there
[14:22:25] <Meetecho> In the past we experienced issues when Firefox autoupdated in the background (probably long solved by now, but still...)
[14:22:32] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[14:22:35] Martin Thomson joins the room
[14:22:40] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[14:22:41] Martin Thomson joins the room
[14:22:47] John Levine leaves the room
[14:22:47] John Levine joins the room
[14:23:09] Brian Rosen joins the room
[14:23:12] <Jared Mauch> (hmm, did people hear me when i sent audio?)
[14:23:17] <Jared Mauch> (or tried to)
[14:23:37] <brong> no I did not
[14:23:37] <Lucy Lynch> no
[14:23:38] <Jared Mauch> (that's fine, i'll debug here)
[14:23:40] <Russ Housley> no
[14:23:49] <Lucy Lynch> no
[14:24:03] <brong> You've got an echo too!
[14:24:04] <Rich Salz> you echo.
[14:24:09] Mike StJohns leaves the room
[14:24:12] <Christian Huitema> Brian, you get echo too...
[14:24:14] <Alexey Melnikov> No
[14:24:27] <Bob Hinden> Meetecho works a lot better with headsets for audio.
[14:24:34] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[14:24:38] <Martin Thomson> this experience is not working for me
[14:24:41] <Brian Rosen> I am using a headset
[14:24:43] <Henk Birkholz> everything works better with headset for audio
[14:25:02] <sftcd> I assume "Manage" here means day-to-day and not (much) more?
[14:25:03] Pete Resnick (the other one) leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[14:25:13] Jay Daley leaves the room
[14:25:21] <Mirja Kühlewind> @martin what's your issue?
[14:25:32] Jay Daley joins the room
[14:25:49] <Martin Thomson> I have no video, I get drop-outs, the UX is appalling, and I have a few issues with content (but that is to be expected)
[14:26:25] <Mirja Kühlewind> there is also a audio-only stream you could join
[14:26:34] Murray Kucherawy joins the room
[14:26:39] Pete Resnick joins the room
[14:26:40] <sftcd> @eliot: does that "manage" mean "managing the RPC contract" maybe?
[14:26:45] <Martin Thomson> the audio is mostly OK.  dispatch was mostly OK, but this is much worse for some reason
[14:26:46] <alex-Meetecho> Regarding echo cancellation, it usually takes a few seconds to kick-in. Brian's echo disappeared for me after ~5 seconds or so
[14:26:59] <Lucy Lynch> plus one to this
[14:27:00] <Mirja Kühlewind> did you try to re-joining? I was also loosing all video once but worked again after re-joining
[14:27:10] <Martin Thomson> yes, I have rejoined a number of time
[14:27:16] <Mirja Kühlewind> :-(
[14:27:21] <Dave Thaler> insert "IETF" before "executive directory" for clarify
[14:27:26] <Dave Thaler> clarity
[14:27:33] Pete Resnick (the other one) joins the room
[14:27:38] <Dave Thaler> yep
[14:27:51] <Martin Thomson> that's just pedanticism, we should talk about IETF LLC, not ED
[14:28:34] <Jari Arkko> +1 to what Stephen said
[14:28:38] <Dave Thaler> @ekr: https://www.ietf.org/blog/welcome-ietf-exec-director/ just calls it "IETF Executive Director".  Not sure which term is the more correct one.
[14:28:46] <Michael StJohns> Stephen is correct - managing the contract of the RPC, not the RPC itself...
[14:28:47] <Lucy Lynch> Agree with SF
[14:28:50] <Russ Housley> I said on the list that the stream managers ought to provide the requirements, but the IETF LLC Exec Director needs to manage the contract
[14:28:52] Peter Van Roste joins the room
[14:29:00] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> You can't watch Jabber and the queue at the same time, unless you use a separate jabber client.
[14:30:53] <alissa> Suggest s/the RPC/the RPC contract/
[14:30:57] <sftcd> s/manages the RPC/manages the RPC contract/
[14:31:05] <alissa> jinx
[14:31:17] <mnot> yes, that
[14:31:20] <Colin Perkins> Project manager confuses here - what project?
[14:31:37] <Christian Huitema> The RSE-RPC relation is not really management, but largely about getting the RPC unstuck when a difficult editing decision has to be made.
[14:31:41] <Michael StJohns> Community sets the general needs for the RPC, the LLC crafts and negotiates the contract, the LLC ED manages the contract from the IETF side, the RPC manager does the day to day management for the RPC employees..
[14:31:44] <Mirja Kühlewind> LLC manages the contract but I think we try to figure out if we also need a project manager?
[14:32:30] <sftcd> @martin: I think a good version of this question is useful - it may take some work off the RSE's shoulders in a way that makes sense
[14:33:00] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[14:33:14] <ekr@jabber.org> is the meetecho chat busted for others?
[14:33:37] <Colin Perkins> @ekr it's working for me
[14:33:39] <Michael StJohns> @christian - these are set in the contract through negotiation...
[14:33:44] <ekr@jabber.org> OK, I just see a blank thing
[14:33:53] <Jay Daley> @ekr - No.  There is a bug that affects some people and is being investigated
[14:33:55] <Mirja Kühlewind> that happen do me as well sometimes
[14:34:04] <Mirja Kühlewind> I'm using another jabber client in that case
[14:34:44] <alex-Meetecho> EKR, Mirja, that jabber issue will be fixed shortly - apologies
[14:34:48] Susan Symington joins the room
[14:35:08] <ekr@jabber.org> OK, well, filed a ticket anyway
[14:35:18] <Martin Thomson> I can't see anything on screen
[14:35:23] <Martin Thomson> so I have no idea what is highlighted
[14:35:25] <Lucy Lynch> hello?
[14:35:28] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> They're fine, but they're not a hum. They're a discussion point.
[14:35:33] <brong> I could not hear mike
[14:35:33] <ekr@jabber.org> (1) Who sets performance goals for the RPC
[14:35:38] <ekr@jabber.org> (2) Who holds them accountable
[14:35:46] <Mirja Kühlewind> question are "who sets performance goals for RPC?" and "Who holds them accountable?"
[14:36:02] <Mirja Kühlewind> but these are not good for humming ;-)
[14:36:14] <Martin Thomson> thanks ekr.  I agree with Mike about this.
[14:36:25] Sean Croghan joins the room
[14:36:46] <Russ Housley> We have in the past set SLA that are permitted within the scope of the contract
[14:37:06] <brong> this is called a contract modification, right?
[14:37:06] <sftcd> @martin: I think what you and msj (and me) think is good here is not the status quo so worth agreeing
[14:37:23] <brong> you amend the contract
[14:37:26] <sftcd> 'cause someone'll have to rewrite some bit of RFC text too
[14:37:46] <Richard Barnes> +1 bron
[14:37:55] <Richard Barnes> contracts are not immutable
[14:38:30] <Martin Thomson> I think that we have this: a contract from the IETF LLC to an entity that fulfills that contract and - if there are people to manage - manages those people
[14:38:45] 贾明麟 joins the room
[14:39:13] <Michael StJohns> @martin - who manages those people?
[14:39:52] 贾明麟 leaves the room
[14:39:55] 贾明麟 joins the room
[14:40:06] <ekr@jabber.org> @MSJ: I believe he means the entity does
[14:40:11] <ekr@jabber.org> I.e., someone at AMS
[14:40:16] <Martin Thomson> management is a responsibility of the contractor, they provide any necessary management within that contract
[14:40:19] <Joel Halpern> @Michael StJohns at least as currently structured, and I think a good idea, the management of the people is done by AMS as part of the contract.
[14:40:19] <Michael StJohns> @lucy - can you push your volume up a bit please
[14:40:20] <Martin Thomson> so yeah, AMS
[14:40:32] <Michael StJohns> @marting et al - thanks
[14:40:38] <Michael StJohns> it was confusing as stated
[14:40:46] <Jared Mauch> (time check: 70 min)
[14:41:08] <Christian Huitema> How do we see who is speaking when they do not send video?
[14:41:16] Larry Masinter joins the room
[14:41:21] <Michael StJohns> @eliot - add "neither"
[14:41:24] <Jared Mauch> you can see it on the participants list (at the top)
[14:41:38] <Jared Mauch> (it has - 'sending media')
[14:41:53] <Jared Mauch> you can't see that at the same time as the chat though..
[14:41:58] <Joel Halpern> @Christian Huitema - if folks are not sending video, there is no way to tell who is talking.  This was pointed out as an issue during the test sessions.
[14:42:25] <Martin Thomson> Eliot: please say something, I can't see your screen
[14:42:46] W Hardaker2 joins the room
[14:42:50] <Martin Thomson> (silence...) "how about this?" doesn't work
[14:42:59] <sftcd> @martin, Eliot added "stream managers" as 4th option
[14:43:05] <Karen O'Donoghue> He added stream managers as a 4th option
[14:43:07] <Martin Thomson> thanks
[14:44:31] Jared Mauch leaves the room
[14:44:42] Jared Mauch joins the room
[14:45:10] <Lucy Lynch> collaborate with
[14:45:11] <sftcd> what's the betting "a mix of these" ends up as last choice and gets best hum?
[14:45:16] <Jim Schaad> No, the board could be subordinate
[14:47:17] <Jared Mauch> (if you clicked the "gallery view" you won't see the slides, you can switch back to the "presentation view")
[14:47:21] Marco Hogewoning joins the room
[14:48:17] <Rich Salz> transparency
[14:48:43] <Martin Thomson> yeah, I agree with Mark, transparency is really important here
[14:49:02] <ekr@jabber.org> It would be helpful to me to be clearer on what "Strategy" is
[14:49:09] <ekr@jabber.org> because this all seems notably slow moving
[14:49:27] <W Hardaker2> who is responsible for managing xml v4, eg.
[14:49:29] <W Hardaker2> (imho)
[14:49:30] <mnot> how do I stop sending audio?
[14:49:39] <ekr@jabber.org> I think you press the right microphone thingy
[14:49:40] <W Hardaker2> click the same button mnot
[14:49:49] <Richard Barnes> XMLv4 :scream::scream::scream::scream:
[14:49:49] <Christian Huitema> @Joel Halpern: I finally found how to visualize who is in queue and who is speaking -- the little icon under the microphones.
[14:50:03] <W Hardaker2> sorry.  I meant v5
[14:50:13] <Richard Barnes> if we are still using XML in the timeframe where XMLv5 would be delivered, we will have failed as an organization
[14:50:23] <Martin Thomson> I don't want a *different* board.  That will solve none of the problems we saw.
[14:50:39] <Lucy Lynch> working group where?
[14:50:53] <Christian Huitema> The last thing we want is closed board making decisions in closed rooms.
[14:51:06] <ekr@jabber.org> xmlv6
[14:51:21] <Christian Huitema> And the org chart is already so full of various boards, we don't need more.
[14:51:37] <ekr@jabber.org> perhaps some kind of working group
[14:51:50] <mnot> Why does it have to be a committee?
[14:51:58] <Christian Huitema> The working group part looks much better.
[14:52:10] <W Hardaker2> Board of XMLv7 editing design (BOXED)
[14:52:15] <mnot> (I read "committee" as nominated / selected membership, rather than a WG model where any interested party can show up)
[14:52:16] <Jeffrey Yasskin> Maybe a hum would reveal an existing preference for one of these options. ;-)
[14:52:43] <sftcd> "a mix of these" will win hum;-)
[14:53:36] <Martin Thomson> board = closed set, appointed by $SOMEONE, accountable to $OTHER
[14:53:39] <Jared Mauch> (~55 min left)
[14:53:48] Peter Van Roste leaves the room
[14:53:54] <Martin Thomson> wg = open set, chairs appointed by $SOMEONE, accountable to $OTHER
[14:54:03] <Lucy Lynch> where?
[14:54:12] <mnot> Right - just because we have an expert available doesn't mean that they're "the person"
[14:54:12] <Lucy Lynch> do you home a WG
[14:55:07] kha joins the room
[14:55:21] <ekr@jabber.org> Sorry, I somehow thought Eliot was asking me
[14:56:08] <kha> "thought leader"?
[14:56:18] Phillip Hallam-Baker joins the room
[14:56:22] Bob Hinden leaves the room
[14:56:25] Bob Hinden joins the room
[14:56:32] <mnot> I'm more comfortable if these hums are just to get a sense of where we're at to seed further discussion. If they're to make a decision anytime soon, they're premature.
[14:56:55] <sftcd> +1 to mnot
[14:57:23] <ekr@jabber.org> To be clear, I am certainly not saying the XML thing was a success
[14:57:26] <ekr@jabber.org> or to be followed
[14:57:38] <John C Klensin> @part of the problem is that there is a big difference between a committee with substantive knowledge of technical publishing, etc., (although taking input from the community, I hope) and one that is all about mostly-uninformed opinions.
[14:57:38] <Martin Thomson> I would like to request that we not talk about finding a "thought leader".  We need to increase the bus number.
[14:57:49] <Christian Huitema> I hesitate using the world disaster but it was close...
[14:58:09] <Jeffrey Yasskin> +1. One way to use the hum to seed discussion might be to remove "a mix" from the list, and have people hum for the things that should be involved.
[14:58:17] <Jeffrey Yasskin> (+1 to mnot)
[14:58:24] <Richard Barnes> @JCK - The RFC series is pretty far from serious technical publishing these days
[14:58:42] Christian Huitema_196 leaves the room
[14:58:58] <Richard Barnes> it is unlike any other scientific or engineering publication
[14:59:15] <W Hardaker2> it might be easier to eliminate the things we *don't* want
[14:59:16] <John C Klensin> @Richard: yes, and I see the things that have gotten us there as part of the problem
[14:59:48] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[14:59:48] <ekr@jabber.org> @Richard: well, my diagnosis would be that the RFC series has remained effectively static whereas technical publishing has moved on
[14:59:50] Christian Huitema joins the room
[14:59:50] <Russ Housley> I hear Brian trying to prune the search tree
[14:59:59] <Richard Barnes> well, it's not clear to me that we *should* be like a scientific / engineering publication, vs. more like technical documentation
[15:00:02] Christian Huitema_407 joins the room
[15:00:09] <John C Klensin> Or you could substitute "standards publication" for "technical publication" in my comment and the comment would not change much
[15:00:30] Susan Symington leaves the room
[15:00:34] <Richard Barnes> if the purpose of our documents is to make running code better, then we should probably leverage the technologies that people use to help each other write code
[15:00:43] <csperkins> @Richard Barnes IRTF and IETF series might have different requirements here
[15:00:50] <Richard Barnes> @csperkins indeed
[15:00:51] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> Seems that a lot of people think they are experts, that doesn't make them so.
[15:00:55] <sftcd> @richard: IMO the process leading to RFCs is way better than most other scientific publication in many ways (a lot of those ways are a PITA but still better)
[15:01:03] <Christian Huitema> I really dislike the idea of a "committee of experts" -- seems like a recipe for little kings, or an old boys club
[15:01:07] <ekr@jabber.org> @sftcd: I cannot say I agree with that
[15:01:22] <Richard Barnes> @sftcd agree in some ways, not in others
[15:01:35] <sftcd> fair 'nuff, but publish-or-perish IMO leads to higher crap-percentage than we produce
[15:01:46] <Christian Huitema> How is a working group not a committe of experts?
[15:02:06] <brong> Christian Huitema: for a start, I show up to working groups
[15:02:14] <brong> extrapolate at will
[15:02:26] <ekr@jabber.org> @sftcd: no, I also don't agree with that either. IMO the average USENIX Security paper is stronger than the average RFC.
[15:02:36] <Jared Mauch> (I'm concerned that having someone report to a WG meaning they report to nobody)
[15:02:46] <sftcd> average USENIX paper >> average paper
[15:03:05] <sftcd> I'd agree RFCs would be in the middle of that
[15:03:15] <Christian Huitema> The whole IETF is based on the idea that actual experts will join the WGs. The expertise can be verified by the value of their drafts, their technical arguments, etc. Not some kind of pedigree and badge.
[15:03:33] <Richard Barnes> +1 @christian
[15:03:34] <John C Klensin> @Jared: Yep.
[15:04:14] <Jared Mauch> (I'm also concerned that we have no more experts and just localized SMEs that disregard each other too)
[15:04:28] <sftcd> I'll be wondering if we're humming for one only or all we like
[15:04:35] <Rich Salz> +1.  But we could hire/contract Heather as an expert.
[15:04:38] <ekr@jabber.org> I'm going to object to the hum anyway
[15:04:45] <Richard Barnes> @jared that seems to presume that there were ever exprets
[15:04:58] <sftcd> can I hum for objecting to the hum? :-)
[15:05:27] <Michael StJohns> :-)
[15:06:06] <Martin Thomson> so how did sybil hum?
[15:06:09] <Jari Arkko> I feel like humming for "not ready"
[15:06:18] <Lucy Lynch> agree
[15:06:19] <mnot> yeah, kind of agree.
[15:06:22] <jon-ietf> i also don't really understand the committee vs. standing program distinction
[15:06:24] <ekr@jabber.org> I mean whatever
[15:06:25] <Jared Mauch> (40 mins)
[15:06:25] <Martin Thomson> not ready seems pretty firm, even if I had a preference (as I do)
[15:06:42] <brong> let's have a hum on "are we premature"?
[15:06:47] <adrianfarrel> +1
[15:06:52] <John C Klensin> +1
[15:06:52] <csperkins> agree this is way premature
[15:06:58] <Mirja Kühlewind> I guess the difference is that a committee is a closed/selected group?
[15:07:43] <csperkins> Might be worth a test hum first
[15:07:56] <Michael Breuer> the options in the hum are fixed
[15:08:03] <Michael Breuer> you have to ask in audio
[15:08:15] <Ben Campbell> Just like humming IRL :-)
[15:08:32] <jon-ietf> so hum if you think we're ready
[15:08:40] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> So first hum is for yes, second is for no?
[15:08:48] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[15:08:49] <ekr@jabber.org> Who the heck knows
[15:08:53] <Jared Mauch> it came back middle.
[15:08:54] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[15:09:03] <Dave Thaler> you have to ask Yes and No hums separately
[15:09:18] <jon-ietf> yes, 1 hum for we're ready. 2 hum for we're not ready
[15:09:31] <csperkins> What is yes?
[15:09:39] <mnot> WRITE THE QUESTION DOWN
[15:09:42] <W Hardaker2> ready to answer the question
[15:10:00] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Brian should sing some "waiting" music.
[15:10:10] <Martin Thomson> the hum tool is the worst.  It seems designed to a) waste a great deal of time, b) produce questionable results, and c) vote
[15:10:19] <jon-ietf> mt ++
[15:10:43] <Richard Barnes> mt++
[15:10:51] <Jared Mauch> @mnot i think a suggested improement would be the chairs have to type the question so people can see it, then the result could be recorded.. then again the ietf doesn't vote ;)
[15:10:54] <Martin Thomson> also, the buttons jump around as you try to click on them
[15:11:07] <brong> I raised all this in the testing 2 weeks ago
[15:11:09] <sftcd> not what way I hummed there - it accused me of changing my mind:-)
[15:11:13] <ekr@jabber.org> well, also to let people simultaneously hum on all the alternatives
[15:11:14] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Thank you. You carry a fine tune.
[15:11:21] <alissa> Please take humming tool feedback to tools-discuss@ietf.org
[15:11:22] <Martin Thomson> someone is producing a LOT of noise
[15:11:40] <W Hardaker2> I think it's rich
[15:11:45] <Ole Jacobsen> Someone needs to MUTE please!
[15:11:51] <Jari Arkko> mt +1
[15:12:02] kha leaves the room
[15:12:04] <Pete Resnick (the other one)> Remove Rich from the audio please.
[15:12:04] <sftcd> @rich: better to be muted
[15:13:47] <Martin Thomson> what are our actual requirements for strategy?
[15:14:15] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think having discussion based on the draft that we already have would be more productive
[15:14:16] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[15:14:22] <sftcd> FWIW, I would actually like "a mix of these" - I'd include having an RSE as part of that myself
[15:14:22] <Mirja Kühlewind> draftS
[15:14:31] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[15:15:52] <sftcd> not clear we can usefully identify requirements/scope for "strategy for next N years" for a thing like the RFC series
[15:16:46] <Lucy Lynch> plus one
[15:16:47] <mnot> +1 Colin
[15:17:14] Ole Trøan leaves the room
[15:17:20] <Martin Thomson> one XML format every 8 years seems pretty lightweight, even if we also add a smaller things like DOIs
[15:18:00] <mnot> This sounds perilously close to "we can't change it because we don't understand it."
[15:18:04] <sftcd> @mt: seems to me your question presumes an answer to "what's the rse role"
[15:18:34] d sibold joins the room
[15:19:09] d sibold leaves the room
[15:19:24] d sibold joins the room
[15:19:25] <Martin Thomson> sftcd: in what way?  I'm just asking what the magnitude of the strategy component is
[15:19:57] <Jared Mauch> hire a fictional person (ala: mary poppins?)
[15:19:58] <sftcd> I'm unsure that one can identify such requirements, leading to a Null set outcome which maps to "no RSE needed"
[15:20:24] <Richard Barnes> @Jared: Does Mary have expertise in technical publishing?
[15:20:35] <mnot> It doesn't have to be complete, but some examples would help
[15:20:40] <alissa> Was the strategy documented somewhere in the past?
[15:20:49] <Jared Mauch> She does in punishing poor behaving individuals.
[15:21:15] <ekr@jabber.org> @sftcd: I'm not looking for a complete list, but I am looking for some examples
[15:21:25] <ekr@jabber.org> And if nobody has any....
[15:21:44] <sftcd> right, that's what I perceive as a problem with the suggestion to do reqs analysis
[15:22:00] <Martin Thomson> FWIW, I don't see this as zero.  I see this as small, based on what has happened in the past and what I see as coming up.  The language issue is a good example of things that might need work (but I also don't know that it specifically does need top-down leadership).
[15:22:21] <Jared Mauch> (i'm trying to understand the sense of community urgency around this, i was mostly oblivious to/ignoring this stuff pre-singapore)
[15:24:18] <mnot> Lucy, can you increase your mic gain?
[15:24:51] <Martin Thomson> Lucy, I have great headphones and you are almost impossible to hear
[15:24:56] <csperkins> @Lucy Lynch you’re very quiet
[15:25:09] <sftcd> when I squint my eyes somehow I hear her better:-)
[15:26:07] <Jared Mauch> *waves hand*
[15:26:50] 贾明麟 leaves the room
[15:26:52] 贾明麟 joins the room
[15:27:19] <Jared Mauch> (20 mins or so)
[15:27:25] <Richard Barnes> sftcd - little puzzled by the idea you seem to have that we might need to have an RSE even if we have no examples of what their job is
[15:27:39] <sftcd> @rlb: I like to be puzzling:-)
[15:28:05] <Richard Barnes> and i like a good puzzle, but maybe not when we're trying to make some progress here :)
[15:28:26] <sftcd> FWIW I do think "ensure the series is still around in max(now+50years, until it's useless)" is a thing for the RSE
[15:28:48] <sftcd> sorry s/max/min/:-)
[15:28:51] <Richard Barnes> i think you mean min
[15:28:52] <Richard Barnes> heh
[15:29:01] <ekr@jabber.org> Well, I do think one might posit that a system that took 8 years to deliver XML might be imperfect
[15:29:14] <Richard Barnes> ekr++
[15:29:19] <sftcd> I never aim for perfect
[15:29:33] <sftcd> but agree wrt 8 years
[15:29:36] <Martin Thomson> Mike: I look forward to your review of my draft
[15:29:46] <ekr@jabber.org> Isn't that wht MT's draft is?
[15:31:35] <mnot> We also have a lot of information about how an RSE-style system has a bunch of in-built tension, ambiguity and lack of transparency. It may not be a salvageable starting point — we need to look into it.
[15:32:19] <sftcd> @chairs: if doing that compare'n'contrast please try find a neutral party to do the job (if you can, which I doubt;-)
[15:33:02] Ole Troan leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[15:33:16] Lars Eggert leaves the room
[15:34:05] <ekr@jabber.org> I mean to go back to 8 years, we started TLS 1.3 after the format change started and finished before it finished
[15:34:25] <sftcd> yeah tls1.3 was also waaay too slow:-)
[15:34:53] <alissa> if only you had had someone with the dynamism to find consensus faster in tls
[15:35:01] <Jared Mauch> (~15 min)
[15:35:01] <sftcd> heh:-)
[15:35:02] <ekr@jabber.org> I am notable not dynamic
[15:35:10] Alice Russo leaves the room
[15:35:20] <Richard Barnes> and TLS 1.3 was solving concrete pain points!
[15:35:49] <sftcd> I do agree though the rfc format thing likely suffered from not being on the top of enough people's causes-pain lists
[15:36:13] <sftcd> perhaps unless you name has an umlaut or similar, not sure
[15:36:26] <ekr@jabber.org> FWIW, I *do* have a list of things that we should change. And it starts with "finding some way to deal with the need for small, frequent updates"
[15:36:42] <Richard Barnes> @ekr let's start a draft
[15:36:49] <sftcd> yeah but that's not a format change really, though is related, sure
[15:37:00] <Richard Barnes> i bet we can get to 95 theses
[15:37:22] <ekr@jabber.org> Well, if people believe that the scope of this function is limited to formats, then that's real progress
[15:37:33] <sftcd> no, that's the example you picked
[15:37:41] <Mirja Kühlewind> yes, ekr would that be a task for a future RSE or a similar role/group? Or this that for the IETF community to solve?
[15:37:55] <ekr@jabber.org> sftcd: because that's the last major change anyone did
[15:37:56] <Mirja Kühlewind> s/this/is/
[15:37:56] <alissa> yeah the frequent updates discussion has gone almost nowhere under the RSE model
[15:38:19] <sftcd> not saying rfc format is a wrong example, but it's one is all
[15:38:26] <ekr@jabber.org> @Mirja: well, the assumption that RFCs need to be immutable has basically blocked any real discussion of fixing that
[15:38:37] <Martin Thomson> XML is, in many ways, the worst example
[15:38:51] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> 1 ekr
[15:38:54] <Richard Barnes> one of many ways that XML is the worst
[15:39:00] <John C Klensin> @stfcd: part of the problem is that the pain level is that the i18n piece is dismissed as "an umlaut or similar".  The pain goes 'way up with writing systems not based on Latin or even Greek.
[15:39:03] <Martin Thomson> the decision process that lead to a decision to use XML was probably what we need to look at
[15:39:23] <mnot> ^^ that  (MT)
[15:39:28] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> The immutability issuye is a key problem. And the notion that we are writing for the ages
[15:39:31] Simon Romano joins the room
[15:39:49] <sftcd> @mt: the decision to use xml predates my interest in this topic, some history on that could be informative
[15:39:56] <Martin Thomson> the strategic decision is what matters, and I understand that THAT was relatively simple, for XML; execution... egads
[15:40:05] <mnot> I am not excited about staying up late / getting up early for discussions that meander like these seem to. I'd rather stay on the mailing list, if folks can put energy into it.
[15:40:19] <John C Klensin> @mnot: +1
[15:40:20] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> @Klensin even more so when trying to write a document talking about internationalization
[15:40:31] <sftcd> +0.75 to mnot
[15:40:50] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> Not being able to get names right is one thing. Not being able to actually give a meaningful example...
[15:41:00] <Mirja Kühlewind> I still think a more useful meeting would be to talk in detail about the existing proposal we already have in draft form
[15:41:12] <Mirja Kühlewind> proposalS
[15:41:12] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[15:41:14] Russ Housley leaves the room
[15:41:16] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[15:41:17] <mnot> Talking about well-developed proposals in detail is another thing.
[15:41:17] Larry Masinter leaves the room
[15:41:31] Simon Romano leaves the room
[15:41:36] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[15:41:37] Joel Halpern leaves the room
[15:41:37] sftcd leaves the room
[15:41:37] jon-ietf leaves the room
[15:41:37] <Martin Thomson> Mirja, I would be happy to talk through what I've proposed; and I'm certainly open to changing lots of aspects of that
[15:41:38] Stephen Farrell leaves the room
[15:41:39] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[15:41:39] Brian Rosen leaves the room
[15:41:39] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[15:41:41] Michael StJohns leaves the room
[15:41:41] Jon Peterson leaves the room
[15:41:42] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[15:41:42] Jared Mauch leaves the room
[15:41:42] Wes Hardaker leaves the room
[15:41:43] Pete Resnick (the other one) leaves the room
[15:41:44] Bob Hinden leaves the room
[15:41:44] Jay Daley leaves the room
[15:41:45] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[15:41:45] Jim Schaad leaves the room
[15:41:48] John C Klensin leaves the room
[15:41:50] Lucy Lynch leaves the room
[15:41:50] W Hardaker2 leaves the room
[15:41:50] Jeffrey Yasskin leaves the room
[15:41:52] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[15:41:53] Jari Arkko leaves the room
[15:41:54] Murray Kucherawy leaves the room
[15:41:57] John Klensin leaves the room
[15:42:01] James Galvin leaves the room
[15:42:03] alissa leaves the room
[15:42:04] Yoshiro Yoneya_927 leaves the room
[15:42:08] Phillip Hallam-Baker leaves the room
[15:42:12] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[15:42:18] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[15:42:22] Dave Thaler leaves the room
[15:42:38] Alexey Melnikov_118 leaves the room
[15:42:48] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[15:42:50] Ole Jacobsen leaves the room
[15:43:00] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[15:43:02] Henrik Levkowetz leaves the room
[15:43:02] Colin Perkins leaves the room
[15:43:02] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[15:43:02] John Levine leaves the room
[15:43:02] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[15:43:02] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[15:43:02] Marco Hogewoning leaves the room
[15:43:02] Stephen McQuistin leaves the room
[15:43:02] Henk Birkholz leaves the room
[15:43:02] Rich Salz leaves the room
[15:43:02] Dominique Lazanski leaves the room
[15:43:02] Sean Croghan leaves the room
[15:43:02] Christian Huitema_407 leaves the room
[15:43:02] Sean Leonard leaves the room
[15:43:02] Sandy Ginoza leaves the room
[15:43:02] 贾明麟 leaves the room
[15:43:02] Michael Breuer leaves the room
[15:43:02] Stuart Cheshire leaves the room
[15:43:06] mnot leaves the room
[15:48:41] adrianfarrel leaves the room
[15:50:09] brong leaves the room
[16:01:24] John Levine_ leaves the room
[16:02:19] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[16:02:21] Christian Huitema joins the room
[16:04:50] Meetecho leaves the room
[16:14:02] d sibold leaves the room
[16:24:01] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[16:27:09] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[16:52:19] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[17:35:34] Christian Huitema joins the room
[18:08:41] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[18:08:41] Christian Huitema joins the room
[18:18:14] alex-Meetecho leaves the room
[18:30:51] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[18:30:57] Christian Huitema joins the room
[18:31:16] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[18:31:34] Christian Huitema joins the room
[18:41:32] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[19:03:48] Christian Huitema joins the room
[19:09:43] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Broken pipe
[20:27:54] ghwood@llc.ietf.org leaves the room
[21:49:17] Christian Huitema joins the room
[21:50:04] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[21:50:23] Christian Huitema joins the room
[21:54:29] ghwood@llc.ietf.org joins the room
[22:00:44] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[22:00:44] Christian Huitema joins the room
[22:15:29] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: Replaced by new connection
[22:15:30] Christian Huitema joins the room
[22:28:02] ghwood@llc.ietf.org leaves the room