[00:02:25] <adam> I mean, seriously, check out the MMUSIC history page: "1993-04-23 - Proposed group / 1993-06-24 - Started group"
[00:04:39] <JcK> adam: check out the DHC WG.  Predates my tenure as an AD
[00:04:53] <Brian Carpenter> I thought DHC had the record, since pre-1991
[00:05:45] <JcK> ... and its longevity/permanance/ stoppng rules was questioned even then.  May be entirely reasonable but doesn't make it what we want to do.
[00:06:58] <adam> Good point. MMUSIC was the first WG I ever participated in, so it really sticks out in my memory. :)
[00:06:58] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room
[00:07:15] <adam> +1 to the point about public discourse
[00:08:30] <jmh> It strikes me that there needs to be some consistent and accepted means for community socialization / community review / public discussion of topics.  What exactly that "owns" is less clear to me.
[00:09:56] <adam> What I'm most worried about is that Mike's proposal edges a bit too much into "BDFL" teritorry, and we all (hopefully) know how badly that goes wrong.
[00:09:56] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl joins the room
[00:10:15] <Mark Nottingham> +1 to that suggestion
[00:10:42] <JcK> May I point out that we seem to be about to make a decision in a meeting rather than one a mailing list?
[00:10:52] <Martin Thomson> I would be OK with trying to join forces with Brian and merge the drafts, but that leads to major differences being undecided.
[00:11:11] <Mark Nottingham> @JcK my assumption was that everyone here understands this will be confirmed on list
[00:11:19] <Mark Nottingham> … much as everyone here knows about the Note Well
[00:11:31] <JcK> @Mark: hope you are right.
[00:11:34] <Eliot Lear> Yes.  Everything gets confirmed on list
[00:11:56] <adam> Martin Thomson: I was thinking something along those lines, since they're strucutraly similar. But, like, couldn't you do "section x.y.1 -- Option 1" and "section x.y.2 -- Option 1" where they vary in consequential ways.
[00:12:15] <adam> Of course, I mean "Option 2" for the second one
[00:12:18] <Martin Thomson> That would work
[00:12:25] <JcK> Concur with Lucy
[00:12:28] <Mark Nottingham> Again, we're choosing a starting point, not locking things in.
[00:12:59] <Eliot Lear> @mnot: precisely so
[00:13:05] <adam> Mark Nottingham: While I agree, I share EKR's concern that what's writtend down is presupposed to require consensus to overturn rather than consensus to keep.
[00:13:51] <adam> I mean, technically, you could start with Mike's document and turn it into something that is functionally identical to Martin's, but we're not discussing doing that.
[00:13:55] <ekr@jabber.org> I have have been at the mic a lot, but to restate, with my amendment, I'm happy to hum for [mike, linear combination + martin/brian]
[00:14:36] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> linear combination or quantum superposition?
[00:15:04] <ekr@jabber.org> +1 to Rich
[00:15:11] <adam> Yep, that's what I want.
[00:15:16] <Martin Thomson> I could do that.
[00:15:17] <Mark Nottingham> @adam when in this situation before (e.g., QUIC), we've explicitly said that the starting point does NOT imply consensus to keep
[00:15:18] <ekr@jabber.org> I was actually going to suggest that Brian and Martin co-author
[00:15:49] <Martin Thomson> If Brian is amenable, I would be OK with being coauthor.
[00:16:03] <adam> Mark Nottingham: I think that's a bit idealistic? I suppose you're asserting that it *worked* for QUIC?
[00:16:05] <Mark Nottingham> Mike's mic is still loud
[00:16:12] <Mark Nottingham> @adam yes....
[00:17:18] <adam> For Brian's statement: s/consensus/progress/
[00:17:27] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> I think one could say that we end this meeting with consensus on all
the rows in Eliot's table that (as Mike says) are substantively the
same
[00:17:43] <Mark Nottingham> Ben: progress ;)
[00:19:11] <Mark Nottingham> The calendar entry indicates this meeting ends at the top of the hour, yet I heard someone say we have 15 minutes. Which is it?
[00:19:22] <ekr@jabber.org> In my experience that is in fact how the IETF does business
[00:19:40] <ekr@jabber.org> And it's been quite successful
[00:19:40] <Martin Thomson> ekr: maybe JcK operates in a different IETF :)
[00:19:44] <adam> If this effort is dead, then we're stuck between "shut down the publication of RFCs altogether" or "keep the RSOC model," and I doubt that's what anyone wants.
[00:19:49] <Mark Nottingham> There are at least two IETFs
[00:21:47] <ekr@jabber.org> Did Eliot just ask us to type disinformation into the chat?
[00:22:10] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> "this" information
[00:22:48] <ekr@jabber.org> I preefer my version
[00:24:06] <ekr@jabber.org> "What do I have to do to get you into an RFC today"
[00:24:57] <adam> I think, regardless of the outcome of this finger-in-the-breeze hum, I think there would be trememdous value to seeing a merged Martin/Brian draft.
[00:26:16] meetingbot joins the room
[00:26:30] meetingbot leaves the room
[00:30:05] <Brian Carpenter> @adam - that means identifying the discrepanicies. Not too hard. Much harder with Mike's.
[00:30:44] <adam> Brian-- Right, because I think there's a big philosophical divide between your document and Mike's.
[00:30:56] <adam> I mean, Eliot said what I was typing as I was typing it. :)
[00:31:04] <Brian Carpenter> :-)
[00:32:49] <adam> I think the *main* thing here is the question of accountability.
[00:33:09] <adam> And that is structurally *very* different between Mike's and Brian's documents.
[00:33:18] <JcK> I agree with Mike -- I see more philosophical difference between Brian's and Markin's drafts than I see between Brian's and Eliot's
[00:33:44] <JcK> (Sorry about not muting... I was getting ready to say that audibly)
[00:34:10] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> There are kind of three states between closed and open, though
[00:34:21] meetingbot joins the room
[00:34:27] meetingbot leaves the room
[00:34:34] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> open-for-read and open-for-write, roughly
[00:34:35] <Brian Carpenter> Perhaps, but the different layouts make it's hard to do a comparison
[00:35:09] <adam> Brian -- so maybe the action item here is to ask Mike to restructure his document to be more parallel to Martin's and Brian's.
[00:35:21] <adam> s/Brian's/yours/. :)
[00:35:30] <Brian Carpenter> Go for it... ;-)
[00:36:12] <adam> (And I get that we have the bridge for another 25 minutes, but I have a hard stop in 10, and would like to hear how this concludes. :) )
[00:36:20] hardaker joins the room
[00:37:04] <ekr@jabber.org> I'm plus one on consensus
[00:37:16] <ekr@jabber.org> but I'm not +1 on 25 minutes of arguing and no consensus.
[00:38:04] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> I'd be interested in hearing what people think are important issues;
I've heard "board vs WG" and "level of accountability" so far
[00:38:52] <JcK> I think too many issues are intertwined, or based on underlying philosophical differences, to make much more progress today.
[00:39:09] <ekr@jabber.org> Level of authority for the RS?
[00:39:15] <ekr@jabber.org> 'RS?' rather
[00:39:25] Wes Hardaker leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[00:39:43] <kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl> Yeah, I guess I heard that, too; good point
[00:40:18] Brian Carpenter leaves the room
[00:41:35] hardaker joins the room
[00:41:39] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[00:41:44] John (Clone) Levine leaves the room
[00:46:27] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Connection failed: connection closed
[00:52:27] Cindy Morgan leaves the room
[00:52:39] kaduk@jabber.org/barnowl leaves the room
[00:55:16] hardaker leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[01:03:16] Greg Wood (IETF LLC) leaves the room
[01:03:30] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[01:10:05] Mark Nottingham leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[01:10:18] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[01:43:41] jmh leaves the room
[01:51:54] Jay Daley leaves the room
[01:52:25] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[02:16:30] Bob Hinden leaves the room
[04:41:13] JcK leaves the room
[05:44:26] hardaker leaves the room: Disconnected: No route to host
[08:25:06] Eliot Lear joins the room
[09:12:47] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[09:12:47] Eliot Lear joins the room
[09:50:15] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Connection failed: connection closed
[10:58:13] Eliot Lear joins the room
[12:45:08] hardaker joins the room
[13:34:47] csperkins joins the room
[13:36:45] csperkins joins the room
[13:36:52] csperkins leaves the room
[13:37:34] csperkins joins the room
[13:44:22] csperkins leaves the room
[13:49:22] csperkins leaves the room
[14:03:38] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[14:03:38] Eliot Lear joins the room
[14:53:22] Brian Rosen leaves the room
[14:57:46] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[14:57:47] Eliot Lear joins the room
[15:20:22] csperkins leaves the room
[15:20:33] csperkins joins the room
[15:35:15] Cindy Morgan joins the room
[16:04:00] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[16:04:00] Eliot Lear joins the room
[16:41:55] Cindy Morgan leaves the room
[18:03:51] Eliot Lear leaves the room: Stream closed by us: Replaced by new connection (conflict)
[18:03:51] Eliot Lear joins the room
[18:38:39] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[18:41:43] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room