[02:15:50] lellel joins the room
[02:16:19] lellel leaves the room
[08:30:30] mjenkins joins the room
[08:33:47] Meetecho joins the room
[09:02:51] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[09:02:57] Stephen McQuistin joins the room
[09:02:57] <Alissa Cooper> test
[09:03:29] <Alissa Cooper> can someone respond to this test message?
[09:03:41] Magnus Westerlund joins the room
[09:03:48] alex-meetecho joins the room
[09:03:59] Matthew joins the room
[09:04:00] undefined joins the room
[09:04:03] Meetecho joins the room
[09:04:19] <Meetecho> I can read it Alissa
[09:04:22] Eric Orth joins the room
[09:04:25] Dan York joins the room
[09:04:39] <Alissa Cooper> ok
[09:04:53] Lorenzo Miniero joins the room
[09:04:54] Jay Daley joins the room
[09:05:34] Pete Resnick joins the room
[09:05:46] Oliver Borchert joins the room
[09:06:06] Dieter Sibold joins the room
[09:06:32] Greg Wood joins the room
[09:06:43] Simon Hicks joins the room
[09:06:48] John Klensin joins the room
[09:07:16] Brian Trammell joins the room
[09:07:26] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[09:07:31] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[09:07:31] Lars Eggert joins the room
[09:07:32] Mark McFadden joins the room
[09:07:32] Dan York_596 joins the room
[09:07:32] Colin Perkins joins the room
[09:07:32] Phillip Hallam-Baker joins the room
[09:07:33] Michael StJohns joins the room
[09:07:35] <Brian Trammell> greetings, all, I am your friendly humble jabber scribe
[09:07:37] Eric Kinnear joins the room
[09:07:37] Julian Reschke joins the room
[09:07:37] Pete Resnick_918 joins the room
[09:07:37] Cindy Morgan joins the room
[09:07:38] David Schinazi joins the room
[09:07:38] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[09:07:38] Martin Thomson joins the room
[09:07:39] Joel Halpern joins the room
[09:07:39] Rich Salz joins the room
[09:07:42] Sandy Ginoza joins the room
[09:07:43] Russ Housley joins the room
[09:07:44] Jared Mauch joins the room
[09:07:45] <Brian Trammell> if you want something at the mic, please preface with MIC:
[09:07:47] <Michael StJohns> got it
[09:07:48] Lucas Pardue joins the room
[09:07:51] <Martin Thomson> wow
[09:07:52] <Dan York> Testing
[09:07:53] Jay Daley_406 joins the room
[09:07:55] Sandy Ginoza leaves the room
[09:07:55] <Jared Mauch> yes
[09:07:58] Karen Moreland joins the room
[09:08:00] Sandy Ginoza joins the room
[09:08:01] Brian Rosen joins the room
[09:08:01] Christian Huitema joins the room
[09:08:03] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[09:08:05] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[09:08:17] dschinazi joins the room
[09:08:18] <Brian Trammell> or HEY BRIAN COULD YOU PLEASE YELL THE FOLLOWING, but MIC is shorter to type
[09:08:19] Pete Resnick_918 leaves the room
[09:08:22] hardie joins the room
[09:08:24] Pete Resnick joins the room
[09:08:26] hardaker joins the room
[09:08:32] <dschinazi> :)
[09:08:33] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[09:08:40] JcK joins the room
[09:08:47] Mike StJohns joins the room
[09:09:07] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[09:09:21] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[09:09:24] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[09:10:28] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[09:10:55] Tommy Pauly joins the room
[09:11:38] bhoeneis joins the room
[09:11:59] <Rich Salz> Dang, and I just finished programming a keyboard shortcut.
[09:12:56] <Russ Housley> I do not think "Figurehead" is any better than "Thought Leader"
[09:13:16] dschinazi leaves the room
[09:13:20] <Martin Thomson> Figurehead is worse, I think
[09:13:23] <Brian Rosen> Yeah, I agree
[09:13:32] <Brian Trammell> thought leader is just figurehead with more words
[09:13:35] <Brian Trammell> but yeah
[09:13:39] David_Schinazi joins the room
[09:13:39] <Martin Thomson> If you want to be a lump of wood at the front of a ship, go for it.  I don't want it.
[09:13:53] Alice Russo joins the room
[09:13:55] <Brian Rosen> Is "Editor" actually okay, even for an advisor?
[09:14:04] <Brian Trammell> "figurehead" has an actual negative connotation now, "thought leader" is still growing its negative connotation.
[09:14:07] <Martin Thomson> Editor has so much baggage.
[09:14:09] <Dan York> Agree. "figurehead" implies to me an empty, meaningless role
[09:14:13] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[09:14:19] <Lucas Pardue> I suggest "Influencer"
[09:14:19] <Mike StJohns> On Topic 10: Generically, there are a large number of responsibilities attributed to the RFC editor by the various RFCs that describe the current model.  If there isn't a body then there needs to be a proposal for disposal of those responsibilities as a) group of volunteeers, b) not done, c) move to the RPC or similar contract.  
[09:14:21] Kireeti Kompella joins the room
[09:14:22] <Martin Thomson> $PERSON would be fine for the moment.
[09:14:31] <Brian Rosen> okay
[09:14:48] <bhoeneis> maybe direct vs. indirect payment should be considered
[09:14:50] <Brian Trammell> +1 MT
[09:15:02] <Brian Trammell> perhaps $RFC_PERSON to scope it
[09:15:03] Yoshifumi Nishida joins the room
[09:15:27] <Martin Thomson> Issue 12 seems more pertinent here.
[09:15:29] <Tommy Pauly> +1 for $RFC_PERSON
[09:15:30] <Martin Thomson> Maybe we can do 12 first.
[09:15:32] <Brian Trammell> lucas: :P
[09:15:47] <Brian Trammell> welcome to the RFC Editor position, here are the tiktok credentials
[09:16:01] <Lucas Pardue> and a Snap filter
[09:16:15] Magnus Westerlund leaves the room
[09:16:18] <Rich Salz> Twitter mandatory too?
[09:17:57] <Brian Trammell> well if you want to reach journalists and news junkies yes
[09:18:13] John Preuß Mattsson joins the room
[09:18:20] <Martin Thomson> There are a bunch of functions that currently all point to an RSE-shaped person.  Yes, we need to find somewhere to point those to if there isn't a person, but the list isn't that long really.
[09:18:27] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[09:18:29] adrianolddog joins the room
[09:19:12] mnot joins the room
[09:19:29] <JcK> @Mike: parts of that issue with the many RFCs is why, when we invented the separate "RFC Series Editor" concent, we started referring to the "RFC Editor Function", thereby deliberately making thing fuzzy.  Whether this is helpful now (especially if part of that function slides into the ExecDir or LLC Staff) remains to be seen
[09:19:48] Michael Breuer joins the room
[09:20:52] Eric Rescorla joins the room
[09:21:02] <Mike StJohns> @jck fair point.  But maybe its as simple as a) look at the current list, b) assign to one of three columns
[09:21:18] Lisa Winkler joins the room
[09:21:26] <Mike StJohns> and c) figure out if therre's enough in one column to make it a person
[09:21:31] Karen O'Donoghue joins the room
[09:21:33] <Martin Thomson> ekr reports that he had a computer crash
[09:22:44] ghwood joins the room
[09:23:49] <Mirja Kühlewind> Who would be chairing the RSAWG?
[09:24:00] <Mike StJohns> we don't actually know what a specific WG looks like until it actually forms, and even then it will evolve over time and as people change.
[09:24:23] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - depends
[09:24:26] <Simon Hicks> Would suggest a highly desirable, maybe essential, to have some experience and knowledge of internet technology.  Technical is too broad and covers a lot of people
[09:24:45] <Brian Rosen> In considering this text, please don't conflate the problem of is this a WG from is this a more closed body.  "RSAWG" may change
[09:24:50] Oliver Borchert leaves the room
[09:25:09] Yoshifumi Nishida leaves the room
[09:25:23] <Mike StJohns> @br yes
[09:25:31] <hardaker> area director?
[09:25:37] <Mirja Kühlewind> +1 one I think there is a need to 1) have technical knowledge and 2) know the IETF process well, and that's why I would like to have  the current responsibilities split up into (at least) two roles
[09:26:50] Alister Winfield joins the room
[09:27:05] <Jared Mauch> I would comment, it used to be possible for someone to know many of the protocols and how it works, it's much harder now, either you need one of the superhumans that can do this, or you shard it
[09:27:24] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - but then who wins when there's tension between the two
[09:27:48] Monika Ermert joins the room
[09:27:55] <Mike StJohns> I don't think the RSE needs to be a domain expert in protocols, just a domain expert in documenting them
[09:28:18] <Tommy Pauly> If their roles are split by different domains, whoever has responsibility for a given topic has responsibility ("wins")
[09:28:20] <Joel Halpern> @Mike I agree about the kind of expertise I am looking for.
[09:29:11] Kireeti Kompella leaves the room
[09:29:39] <Mirja Kühlewind> @Mike I think the community should decide about strategy anyway. For operational question responsibilities should be defined clearly
[09:30:27] <Mike StJohns> @tommy - consider three different document from three different protocol domains where there's an expert for each of those domains, but where we;re trying to get a commonality of form and structure for the documents.  Why would the domain expert win over the publication expert?
[09:30:50] <Brian Trammell> @Mike: I'd expect such a "board" (of two) to work as we do in the IETF: to come to a rough consensus both acceptable to the community and in line with technical publishing realities.
[09:30:58] Alister Winfield leaves the room
[09:32:01] <Mirja Kühlewind> @mike I'm not convinced that the publishing experts automatically wins as the domain experts might know better how the document is read... depends on the question a lot
[09:32:29] Mike English joins the room
[09:32:38] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - but can all three of the domain experts each win and still get a consistency of style?  I'm not sure how?
[09:33:02] <Mike StJohns> I'm not talking about the technical content, but the presentation of it.
[09:33:16] <David_Schinazi> Does the RFC series have consistency of style today?
[09:33:16] <Mirja Kühlewind> that what we do when we try to find consensus
[09:33:37] englishm joins the room
[09:33:37] <Mike StJohns> @david - actually, yes.
[09:34:01] <Pete Resnick> Style guide and everything.
[09:34:19] <Tommy Pauly> @mike I think then there needs to be a clear line between purely editorial decisions (font, whatever else) versus items that influence how a technical document can be understood. Technical experts need to be able to "win" for anything that influences understandability. The publishing expert can advocate for consistency, but clarity and accuracy is always more important than strict consistency.
[09:34:22] <Mirja Kühlewind> style guide should be based on community consensus
[09:34:22] <Mike StJohns> which the RSE was responsible for main authorship with community input (style guide)
[09:34:31] <JcK> I'd go further than "disagreement about how things are structured" and into "disagreement about what this is".   Unless I've missed something in the discussions, some of us still believe that the whole series --as a serious, professional, archival series-- has outlived its usefulness and that we should be moving to unedited, or less-edited, living documents in a collection of web pages
[09:34:32] <Martin Thomson> ekr's split was between getting the tooling right (smoothing the mechanical aspects of the process) and then the "editorial" stuff (style guide, content guidelines, publication venues, syndication, whatever)
[09:34:34] <Mike StJohns> @tommy agree
[09:35:36] <Brian Trammell> (side question: it seems like a lot of this conversation is actually quite useful, could the minute taker dump the jabber log into the raw minutes to make sure the points here are also not lost?)
[09:36:00] <Brian Rosen> We can do that
[09:36:01] <Brian Trammell> (or are these actually saved in the IETF jabber logs?)
[09:36:13] <Mirja Kühlewind> meetecho is the chat archived somewhere?
[09:36:13] <Jay Daley_406> They are saved
[09:36:17] <Pete Resnick> @Tommy: My experience has been that the IETF (technical experts) always do win.
[09:36:17] <Mirja Kühlewind> thanks!
[09:36:24] <Mike StJohns> my client keeps a copy of the log...
[09:36:25] <Martin Thomson> I believe that these are logged, but who knows what happens with crashes like earlier
[09:36:31] <Colin Perkins> https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/rfcefdp/2020-11-19.html
[09:36:32] <Meetecho> Mirja Kühlewind: since the chat is handled by the IETF jabber logs, you can find all jabber logs there
[09:36:38] <Jay Daley_406> These chats are the jabber room logs
[09:36:42] <Brian Trammell> perfect
[09:36:43] <Tommy Pauly> @Pete agreed, which is I believe right
[09:37:52] Henrik Levkowetz joins the room
[09:38:11] Ted Hardie joins the room
[09:39:18] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[09:39:24] <hardie> It looks like some of the messages from meetecho are not reaching my jabber windows.  I had put off resetting that window, and was confused by the @Pete references, since I didn't see them.  Perhaps a dump-and-scroll of that window would be wise to make sure that the whole thing is capture.
[09:39:25] Monika Ermert joins the room
[09:39:28] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think living document is an example actually where knowledge about the IETF community and process is most important
[09:40:18] <Christian Huitema> On tooling, the best role is zero
[09:40:24] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - yes, but AFAICT, a living document model hasn't been explicitly listed as a possibility (e.g. written down)?
[09:40:35] <Mike StJohns> Maybe I missed something... but we'
[09:41:02] <Mirja Kühlewind> no but I meant we might need a person to lead that discussion
[09:41:27] <Mike StJohns> yup - and I think Heather would have been a good person for that... or someone with her skill set
[09:41:49] <Mirja Kühlewind> she would have but only because she has been in the IETF for 7 years
[09:41:59] <Mirja Kühlewind> and therefore had a quite unique skills set
[09:42:03] <Eric Rescorla> Christian, well, I do think we are going to need some toolchain
[09:42:11] <Mike StJohns> leading the discussion I mean and no, not just because of her time in the IETF
[09:42:21] <Eric Rescorla> and we will need some structure for determining how that tooling worked
[09:43:24] <Martin Thomson> How does Robert get his priorities today?  Why does that need to be specially introspected here.
[09:43:43] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[09:43:56] <Martin Thomson> it wasn't quite that laid back
[09:44:10] Toerless Eckert joins the room
[09:45:21] <Alissa Cooper> Today Robert can't initiate changes to the RPC's toolchain or deal directly with the issues around the XML schema
[09:45:23] <Mike StJohns> how did we get on this topic?   of course the rfc model drives the toolchain.   so we need to define (or more properly maybe redefine) the rfc model.  That then drives all of the contract stuff...
[09:45:26] <Martin Thomson> but the core thing was this: the RPC (or REP) is responsible for discharging their job and sourcing tools to do so.  They should seek to build tools that others can use and can ask the LLC to provide resources (tools) with the goal of making them available more widely.  Thus, the LLC can engage in this process as they see fit.  Right now, Robert is tasked with this.
[09:45:48] <Eric Rescorla> @Mike: I was trying to break this down into simpler problems. Again, happy to have some other way of trying to discuss this
[09:46:01] <Martin Thomson> Or maybe Robert is not tasked with this, but maybe he could be.
[09:46:09] <Mike StJohns> @ekr - feels a bit like a rat hole for now.
[09:46:22] <Eric Rescorla> OK, well, happy to have some other plan
[09:46:56] <Mirja Kühlewind> +1 to Colin
[09:46:58] <Mike StJohns> Maybe an additional question:   Is an archival RFC series compatible with a dynamic document RFC series?
[09:47:00] Mark McFadden leaves the room
[09:47:10] <Christian Huitema> +1 Colin
[09:48:30] <JcK> @Mike: my experience suggests strongly that it is not and that the questions turns into two series and then what goes into which and whether their are periodic snapshots of the dynamic materials into the archival ones and what those snapshots "mean".
[09:48:46] <Mike StJohns> @jck - yes - *sigh*
[09:48:52] <Jay Daley_406> To a degree this process *is* determining the process whereby the I-D/RFC tools features are specified, because the previous RSE had a role make that happen.  So it's fair to recognise that in this process so that a gap is not left.
[09:48:53] <Martin Thomson> OK, you lost me colin.  I might reluctantly admit your point that the community is not good at accepting feedback of certain types, but I don't think that it is a disqualifying criterion.
[09:49:03] <Eric Rescorla> Well, I think it depends on what "archival" means. Do you have a definition?
[09:49:05] <Christian Huitema> Mike, the RFC series is already sort of dynamic, with RFC bis and ter. But this conflicts with the "immutability" story, and exterior people tend to always quote the first version.
[09:49:33] <Martin Thomson> An append-only log still supports append.
[09:49:57] <Mike StJohns> @christian - umm... dynamic sort of implies a shorter time scale than what you're offering as an example.
[09:49:58] <JcK> "more dynamic" and "more stable/archival" may not quite be a dichotomy, but I don't think we can handwave around the discussion.
[09:50:10] <Colin Perkins> @martin it very much narrows the pool of people who'd be willing to put up with the process, and leads to frustration from the expert
[09:50:51] <JcK> @ekr: yes, but a better topic for the list than my trying to construct/ explain such a definition while trying to follow the discussion and type.
[09:50:52] Takahiro Nemoto joins the room
[09:51:06] <Eric Rescorla> @JcK. Great. I look forward to seeing it when you have time
[09:51:14] <Martin Thomson> colin: I am not willing to accept that.  I acknowledge the risk though.
[09:51:35] <Colin Perkins> fair
[09:52:09] <mnot> It would be interesting to have a discussion of how we could gather more data about this. E.g., if we contracted an advisor for a year to "just advise" and see how that goes.
[09:52:15] <Brian Trammell> we hear you rüdiger
[09:52:34] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - you mean John Levine?
[09:52:54] <Eric Rescorla> I'm willing to have an advisor, but I think it's an open question whether we really need one. AFAICT a number of other SDOs (e.g., TC39, WHATWG) get along without them
[09:53:00] <mnot> I'm not sure John is who folks are looking for in terms of publishing expertise
[09:53:19] <Eric Rescorla> Just noting that
[09:53:22] <mnot> That's an interesting question; how many people think John is an example of someone with that sort of expertise?
[09:53:31] <Joel Halpern> @mnot, with all thanks for the job he is doing, no John Levine is not what I am looking for in publishing expertise.
[09:53:32] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[09:53:39] Alexey Melnikov joins the room
[09:53:45] <Eric Rescorla> I thought we were going to do the hu tool for that :)
[09:53:53] <Eric Rescorla> hum tool
[09:53:56] <mnot> That's what I thought (and no that doesn't reflect upon him — he's doing a good job)
[09:53:57] <Mike StJohns> @ekr - and most of them have identified editors - at various levels in the publication process
[09:53:58] <hardaker> another way to frame this question: what are the routine/periodic, non-single-event tasks this person is expected to fill (ie, why a paid salary vs a retainer)
[09:54:23] <Colin Perkins> John's also very involved with the IETF community – he can't tell us how an outside publishing expert would interact with the community
[09:54:32] Toerless Eckert leaves the room
[09:54:38] Toerless Eckert joins the room
[09:54:46] <Christian Huitema> I agree with Colin. The narrower the role definition, the better. Asking the expert to bear responsibility outside of expertise is a recipe for trouble.
[09:54:48] <Eric Rescorla> MSJ: I don't think either WHATWG or TC39 has the kind of editor we are talking about. I mean they have document editors in the same sense we do.
[09:54:59] <Eric Rescorla> WHATWG just goes from PR right to publication
[09:55:28] Toerless Eckert leaves the room
[09:55:31] <Julian Reschke> but then their output is mutable, so fixes can be done right way, not in a bis document
[09:55:46] <Eric Rescorla> Julian: this is true.
[09:55:59] <Martin Thomson> Let's not open the debate about that now.
[09:56:05] <Mirja Kühlewind> @ekr I think not having publishing expertise would also mean we should change the series to be less an old-school "publishing thing" which is an even longer discussion
[09:56:08] Paolo Saviano joins the room
[09:56:21] <Eric Rescorla> Well, what does W3C do, for instance?
[09:56:42] <Eric Rescorla> They have a pretty similar standards level structure to us
[09:56:58] <Eric Rescorla> My experience is that there is very little professional editing
[09:57:06] <Joel Halpern> @jck +1 and I want to make sure we can get someone who can help us ask the right questions.  Which implies a role in the process.
[09:57:33] <Mirja Kühlewind> W3C is more publishing on a website than publishing a paper (which might be fine but is different from where we are now)
[09:58:02] <Eric Rescorla> Actually I don't know that that's true. Do they change the documents once they got to CR or whatever?
[09:58:07] <Martin Thomson> A consultant on retainer might be asked questions or might be asked to provide regular analyses of the situation.  Why not both?
[09:58:08] <Mirja Kühlewind> however I can see that the amount of publishing expertise is actually decreasing over time (or shifting at least)
[09:58:08] <Mike StJohns> Look more at IEEE, ANSI or ISO for comparisons
[09:58:15] <mnot> W3C specs are more printable than ours
[09:58:20] <Julian Reschke> W3C revises in-place
[09:58:23] <Mirja Kühlewind> another reason to not back that to deep into the model
[09:58:29] <Eric Rescorla> Well, I'm not sure why I should look at IEEE rather than W3C.
[09:58:33] <Colin Perkins> or USENIX and ACM, for the IRTF stream
[09:58:37] <Pete Resnick> Admitted bias since I hang out with people who are current and former members, but I wouldn't mind getting someone with an STC (Society for Technical Communication) certification to be that sort of advisor.
[09:59:12] <Julian Reschke> mnot: due to lack of CSS skills on our side?
[09:59:31] <Eric Rescorla> @Colin: well, at least when I've published in USENIX, there is no editing at all. You just send camera ready PDF
[09:59:50] <Joel Halpern> @Pete an example of the problem I with this conversation is that I do not have enough expertise to know whether that is a good or bad expectation (that = STC).
[09:59:55] <mnot> @Julian: so many reasons
[09:59:56] <Eric Rescorla> Same thing for ACM CCS
[10:00:03] <JcK> @Pete, yes.  But, unless we drop some of our other requirements, we also need someone with good archival librarian qualifications, which I haven't seen strongly in much of the STC group
[10:00:34] <Colin Perkins> @EKR sure, although for ACM depends on the venue. Also has implications for immutability, archival, etc
[10:00:35] <Julian Reschke> mnot: the PDF is *supposed* to print fine (given the amount of work that was put into it)
[10:00:36] <hardaker> @ekr: but the camera readies have to conform to the required style
[10:00:51] Francesca Palombini joins the room
[10:01:03] <Mirja Kühlewind> In ACM the format and so on is defined by the series; it's not about text editing
[10:01:11] <Joel Halpern> For IEEE journals, they require you to use a very strict format.  And then they edit.
[10:01:12] <Eric Rescorla> @hardaker: well the style mostly consists of "use these LaTeX .sty files and this type of margin"
[10:01:34] <hardaker> yes, and who created those styles?  how is that different than "we take your xml and convert it into the RFC style"?
[10:01:37] <JcK> Also worth noting that "lawyer on retainer" means that you are buying the right to call and ask questions without having to negotiate Ts&Cs first, but the expectation is that the lawyer then naps until you call.
[10:01:49] <Eric Rescorla> @hardaker: there is absolutely no editing of the text
[10:01:55] <Mike StJohns> @EKR - scope mainly.  Unless I'm misunderstanding things, W3C deals with one closely related family of protocols..  ANSI, IEEE and ISO and the IETF all deal with a much broader set of interactions - protocols/.
[10:02:10] <hardaker> there is veto if you don't do their edits
[10:02:24] <Eric Rescorla> @hardaker: that's simply not true for conference publication
[10:02:41] <Eric Rescorla> Again, you just have to meet the formatting requirements and get past the PC
[10:02:42] <Colin Perkins> @ekr depends on the conference; for journals its certainly true
[10:02:47] <Mike StJohns> @jck and gets paid for napping
[10:02:53] <Eric Rescorla> But yes, journals are differen
[10:03:05] <hardaker> I think the PC has the right to drop your paper if you don't address the reviewers and PCs concerns .  But this is a rat-hole.
[10:03:10] <Jay Daley_406> @JcK the "on retainer" model commonly includes a "keep a watch on these areas where you are the subject matter expert and tell me when something comes up that I should take notice of"
[10:03:12] <Eric Rescorla> Colin: yes, I'm familiar with all of the big four security conferences
[10:03:15] <mnot> W3C does not deal with one closely related family of protocols, @Mike; in many ways they're just as diverse as we are.
[10:03:29] <JcK> @Mike: yes.  And if you take about ANSI (as distinct from, e.g., INCITS) or ISO, you are talking about a _very_ broad collection of stuff (e.g., anyone here know about technical specs for welding rods?)
[10:03:35] <mnot> I'm sure many of said much the same of the IETF...
[10:03:52] <Alissa Cooper> FWIW it seems like the senior RPC/tools leader aligns well with the technical/content split ekr spoke about earlier
[10:03:55] <Mike StJohns> @jck or fruit cakes
[10:03:55] <Eric Rescorla> @hardaker: there are usually two kinds of acceptance unconditional and shepherded. In the former, you don't have to do anything. In the latter you have to satisfy the shepherd
[10:04:23] <Eric Rescorla> And again, this is conferences. I agree that journals are much more tightly edited
[10:04:23] <mnot> @Eliot: nod - this is fruitful
[10:04:24] <hardaker> agreed on that; the first is more rare (IMHO) but it does exist
[10:04:45] <Joel Halpern> We seem to have descended pretty close to the "what kind of series do we want" discussion that I thought we said we would avoid.
[10:04:51] <Eric Rescorla> @hardaker: no, unconditional acceptance is the norm in all the big security conferences
[10:05:15] <Eric Rescorla> Typically shepherding is just for borderline papers
[10:05:23] <hardaker> Ok, I'll concede to at least drop the rat hole :-)
[10:05:23] <Eric Rescorla> and it's for *content* usually, not editorial
[10:05:55] <Mike StJohns> @russ +1
[10:06:13] <Alissa Cooper> But this is not consistent with the 6635 model
[10:06:26] <Eric Rescorla> @alissa: please elaborate
[10:06:45] <Mike StJohns> @ekr - you beat me to it..
[10:06:55] <Alissa Cooper> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6635#section-2.2
[10:07:12] <Alissa Cooper> the RSE directs the RPC
[10:07:23] <Eric Rescorla> Thanks!
[10:07:39] <Mike StJohns>    All these activities will be done under the general direction, but
   not day-to-day management, of the RSE and need some level of
   coordination with various submission streams and the RSE.
[10:07:41] <Christian Huitema> What Russ said: it would be better if the advisor had no role whatsoever is stating the SLA of the RPC.
[10:08:12] <Mike StJohns> General direction is a fairly loose term - its possible that the RSE contract previously misinterpreted this as much tighter?
[10:08:41] <Mike StJohns> e.g. missed "not day to day management" when forming the contract
[10:08:44] <Alissa Cooper> the RSE contract made the RSE responsible for the RPC's performance. So, yes.
[10:09:00] <Mike StJohns> contract problem then more than rfc6635 problem?
[10:09:00] <Martin Thomson> I think that the extent to which the RSE was responsible for both assisting the RPC AND assessing their performance is a weakness in the system that is worth fixing if we can.
[10:09:05] <Christian Huitema> @Alissa and IMHO that was a mistake
[10:09:42] <Martin Thomson> So I'm agreeing with Christian.
[10:10:05] <Alissa Cooper> the people who wrote the RFC were also involved in the contracting IIUC
[10:10:06] Dhruv Dhody joins the room
[10:10:06] <Brian Rosen> ISTM that if you had a good person, and there was a problem like a backup, then even if it wasn't in their job description, they would run towards helping solve the problem
[10:10:08] <Mike StJohns> @martin so am i
[10:10:16] <Russ Housley> @Alissa: in practice the stream managers (at least when I was IETF Chair and IAB Chair) set the SLA
[10:11:39] <Alissa Cooper> because the RSOC didn't exist until the end, I guess
[10:12:06] <Russ Housley> @Martin: +1
[10:12:07] Karen Moreland leaves the room
[10:12:08] <JcK> @Christina: probably... but "should not assess performance" does not require "no role in stating/defining the SLA" because it might be entirely reasonable for the RS* to contribute to shaping the RPC SLA but to keep them out of the evaluation loop.
[10:12:16] englishm joins the room
[10:13:17] <Alissa Cooper> and also defining the SLA is not the same as being responsible for performance against the SLA
[10:13:23] englishm leaves the room
[10:13:35] <JcK> @Alissa:  Exactly
[10:14:01] <Joel Halpern> One aspect that complicated this intermittently was the issue of "you have asked for X and Y, that will have impact Z on the SLA."
[10:14:53] John Preuß Mattsson leaves the room
[10:15:46] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[10:15:47] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - and that's the problem - how do you set the structure to do that?
[10:15:54] <Mike StJohns> I haven't a clue...
[10:16:16] <Christian Huitema> The role in defining the SLA meant that RSE had to accomodate issue with the RPC my proposing changes in the SLA. Isolation would avoid this kind of tensions. RPC contracts are better left under the responsability of the LLC.
[10:17:10] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - I mostly agree with that...
[10:17:31] Henrik Levkowetz leaves the room
[10:18:29] <Christian Huitema> Closed groups drift quickly towards old boys clubs.
[10:18:35] <mnot> @MIke: if the expert's argument is persuasive, it should carry the day. E.g., if the expert says "no page numbers becasue foo" and 99 people come into the room and say "I like page numbers!", I'd expect a decision for no page numbers, and people can appeal if they like.
[10:18:38] <Alissa Cooper> @christian this would also imply that the RPC could have a more muscular management of its own function, which is why Eliot's "senior RPC/tools" role is appealing
[10:18:52] <Julian Reschke> closed groups also have a not-so-good track record in this very area
[10:18:53] <Mike StJohns> @christian -0  you mean like the IESG or IAB?
[10:18:53] <Mirja Kühlewind> So issues to solve I have so far: a) difficulty to find a person with the right expertise, b) transparency of strategic decisions, c) setting and overseeing the SLA
[10:19:04] <Mike StJohns> @christian or RGs?
[10:19:16] <Christian Huitema> Yes, the RPC should organize itself to not rely on an outside RSE
[10:19:19] lellel joins the room
[10:19:28] englishm joins the room
[10:19:45] <JcK> @Christian: Even when the LLC generates a draft RFP for a contract and puts an outline of the SLA in it, those typically go out for comment to the community.  Would you prohibit the RSE from commenting?
[10:19:52] <Brian Trammell> +1 Christian; listening to Eliot's (accurate) characterization of the state of the world, IMO the open/closed membership question is a proxy for a different question, "how conservative do we want to be with respect to the process"
[10:20:02] <Alissa Cooper> sort of like how Alexa has discretion to manage the secretariat
[10:20:18] <Brian Rosen> @Christian: Meaning they should hire technical publishing expertise?
[10:20:51] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - in an open group, then the expert would lose.  In a closed group where the primaries are the stream editors/managers and a few nomcom selected folk then the expert loses if the people with the skin in the game over ride them
[10:21:19] <mnot> @Mike - I disagree, if you have good chair and backing of the IESG.
[10:21:21] <Christian Huitema> The RPC operates under contract constraints, which reference style guides, etc.
[10:21:39] <Pete Resnick> +1 mnot
[10:21:51] <Pete Resnick> It requires a good charter for the chair to lean on, but I totally agree.
[10:22:12] <Mike StJohns> @mnot yes if the expert is the chair and gets to determine consensus or "correctness"
[10:22:31] <mnot> @Mike: not necessary, and actually that would be counter-productive
[10:23:02] lellel leaves the room
[10:23:10] <Mike StJohns> @mnot then who decides and how does a chair override the consensus of the 99?
[10:23:34] <Mirja Kühlewind> why should a chair overwrite consensus?
[10:23:35] <Martin Thomson> the chair gets educated and learns that the 99 are being unreasonable
[10:23:40] <mnot> The chair measures the conensus. If the 99 don't have any reasoning beyond preference, they're wrong
[10:24:25] <Martin Thomson> The answer is to unsubscribe from ietf@
[10:24:29] <Jared Mauch> +1 mnot -- sometimes it's important to be the sanity check
[10:24:45] <Eric Rescorla> I actually don't agree with mnot here.
[10:24:49] <mnot> and if the chair measures wrong, appeal.
[10:25:08] <Pete Resnick> The difference between ietf@ and a regular WG is that there is no chairing of most discussions.
[10:25:16] <Julian Reschke> more chairs then
[10:25:26] <mnot> "add more chairs - perfect!"
[10:25:26] <Brian Rosen> Difference between consensus and no consensus?  An expert with a reason vs 99 with preferences may indicate lack of consensus, but not consensus for the experts opinion, right?
[10:25:26] <Eric Rescorla> I think the problem with ietf@ is the lack of moderation, not the demographics of the list
[10:25:43] <Eric Rescorla> Brian: that's probably closer to my view
[10:25:53] <Eric Rescorla> My experience is it's very rare for things to be that crisp
[10:25:58] <Martin Thomson> ietf@ is a cesspit and never a good thing to use in an analogy, except as an example of how not to do things
[10:26:04] <Christian Huitema> The way you solve lazy group membership is to keep the group busy producing something. Separates doers from drifters.
[10:26:07] <mnot> ^^ underrated comment from MT
[10:26:16] <Colin Perkins> Not sure I agree this is an argument for closed, but it’s a real problem with open groups that aren’t well managed.
[10:26:17] <Mike StJohns> @brian - I can't actually figure out how to separate that view from the normal IETF attendee view of consensus..
[10:26:41] <mnot> @Colin - I agree that this argues for a good chair. Of course, every group deserves a good chair, but not all groups get one.
[10:27:16] <Mirja Kühlewind> I guess one question to ask is then: what happens if we don't have enough community involvement (given that for technical working groups the incentives to participate are clearly different)?
[10:27:19] <Jared Mauch> +1 phb (self-appointed experts :-) )
[10:27:22] <Colin Perkins> a good chair is part of it, certainly
[10:27:51] <mnot> PHB's audio is not great
[10:27:51] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - I asked that question already...
[10:28:10] <JcK> @PHB Yes, shutting the experts (the real ones, not the self-appointed ones) in or out is much of what I was trying to get at
[10:28:33] <Colin Perkins> Seems that PHB is saying we do the work, then close the IETF ;)
[10:28:50] <Mirja Kühlewind> I have a hard time understanding PHB
[10:28:56] <Mirja Kühlewind> (because of the audio quality)
[10:29:03] <Jared Mauch> he needs a better mic
[10:29:05] <JcK> I could see a closed group with some Nomcom or IAB or IIESG or... appointees.
[10:29:32] <JcK> ... and term limits
[10:29:54] <Mike StJohns> @jck - 4 stream managers, 2 nomcom appointees, 1 isoc appointee :-)
[10:29:58] <JcK> on them which would mitigate against old boys clubs
[10:30:01] <Jared Mauch> (there's cases for term limits and cases against them.. )
[10:30:31] <JcK> @mike: yep/  Again, didn't claim the idea was new
[10:30:37] <Mike StJohns> :-)
[10:30:37] <Martin Thomson> sorry Mike, but that is a great recipe for an old boys club
[10:30:40] <Jared Mauch> many orgs have past-president/past-chair
[10:30:55] Harin Sarda joins the room
[10:31:00] Richard Barnes joins the room
[10:31:07] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think we need both having a dedicated group of people doing work but also a community consensus process to come to a decsion
[10:31:12] <Mike StJohns> @martin - that is a great recipe for having the people with the responsibilities to have the authority
[10:31:27] <Brian Trammell> tempted to throw a why-not-both meme into the chat
[10:31:42] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - I don't disagree - I just want a decision process that doesn't come down to who was in the room that week
[10:31:46] <Jared Mauch> brian, no /giphy here :-)
[10:32:03] <Mirja Kühlewind> consensus is usually on mailing lists
[10:32:12] <Mirja Kühlewind> as we always do
[10:32:17] <JcK> @Mirja: yes, but, again, I worry about the difference between informed consensus and consensus among thouse who have strong opinions and are loud
[10:32:19] Chathura Sarathchandra joins the room
[10:32:25] Sean Turner joins the room
[10:32:40] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - consensus is not necessarily always the right way to make decisions...
[10:32:41] <Mirja Kühlewind> that's a general problem
[10:32:57] <Mirja Kühlewind> for strategic decision I think it is
[10:33:01] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - its almost a religious argument rather than one about best process
[10:33:06] <mnot> @JcK - I don't disagree, bu that's not in any way specific to this
[10:33:07] <Mirja Kühlewind> (that's maybe were we disagree)
[10:33:07] <Jared Mauch> +1 jck
[10:33:23] Simon Romano joins the room
[10:33:52] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think it's actually especially important for the RFC series as it is so essential to the IETF community
[10:33:59] <mnot> @Mike - if you're going to appoint folks, maybe they should be co-chairs / secretaries / etc.
[10:34:05] <Jared Mauch> I'm concerned that we're not going to reach some community direction before the existing contracts need to be renewed/something
[10:34:15] <Christian Huitema> Directorates are very much the old boys of the area...
[10:34:24] <Richard Barnes> does it need to be said that "closed membership" does not imply either "expert" or "skin in the game"?
[10:34:49] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - pick the people that the various streams have selected to manage their documents to be the representatives of their groups...
[10:34:50] <Julian Reschke> richard: good point
[10:35:20] <Pete Resnick> The IESG is a closed group that is asked to judge the consensus of the open groups, but has the (appealable) power to override.
[10:35:22] <mnot> @Mike - sure.
[10:35:51] <Eric Rescorla> Following up on Pete, one could imagine a WG which needed signoff from the stream managers for its decisions
[10:35:57] <JcK> @mnot: Agreed.  But I would contend that the IETF survives and does good technical work because the culture tends toward consensus among the informed and knowledgable.  When we get into debates about, e.g., the taste, size, and nutritional properties of cookies and the tradeoffs among them, whatever consensus emerges from the bottom of the rathole tends to not be very useful.
[10:36:00] <Mike StJohns> those folk will change over time...
[10:36:10] <Mirja Kühlewind> there is also a point of fixed-term length vs. maintaining long-term expertise here which for me is another reason to separate responsibility
[10:36:13] Chathura Sarathchandra leaves the room
[10:36:22] <mnot> @JcK - In theory, I agree with you. In practice…
[10:36:39] <Jared Mauch> ietf like many communities are opt-in.. would be nice to draft more people at times :-)
[10:36:42] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think the one who draws consensus should have fixed term and change from time to time
[10:36:43] <mnot> @EkR - interesting idea
[10:36:49] <Martin Thomson> That suggests that questions in this area are of the subjective sort
[10:37:02] <JcK> @Mirja, for whatever it is worth, that is why we invented IAB Programs.
[10:37:16] <Martin Thomson> That is, that there is no basis in principle from which decisions might be derived.
[10:37:19] <Russ Housley> @Brian: Aren't the stream managers already those people?
[10:37:44] <Brian Trammell> Russ: Possibly. Unless we decide that we want input from other than stream managers
[10:37:58] <Brian Trammell> which gets to the how-conservative question
[10:38:16] <Pete Resnick> @EKR: So long as the stream managers' decisions are appealable, that sounds like a nice parallel model.
[10:38:18] <Brian Rosen> Could we give a closed group most of the responsibility but require documents to use an open WG-like process?
[10:38:33] <Colin Perkins> The stream managers don't have a whole lot of input currently
[10:38:35] <Martin Thomson> The competing principles here seem to be between community engagement and in ensuring that the process is effective at achieving outcomes.  The assertion is that a open process is incapable of making decisions.
[10:39:15] <Russ Housley> @Colin: That is much easier to adjust than some of the other things we have talked about
[10:39:17] <Mike StJohns> @martin - no - that's not the assertion..
[10:39:29] <Martin Thomson> Mike feel free to correct me.
[10:39:37] <Colin Perkins> @russ sure
[10:39:48] <Martin Thomson> I'm trying to summarize, but clearly I don't understand the point.
[10:40:19] <Mike StJohns> @martin - its more that the input noise for an open proces leads to quite a lot of inefficiency... think of this in terms of the IETF and the difference between a design team and a WG.  
[10:40:48] <Bron Gondwana> I for one would not enjoy being managed by an open mike line as my day job
[10:40:50] <Brian Rosen> Like this WG :)
[10:41:03] <Richard Barnes> if the body is being strategic, then the inefficiency should be less of an issue
[10:41:04] <Mirja Kühlewind> I would find a much easier to discuss concrete proposals then these general principles where everybody has a different model in their head... just saying
[10:41:13] <Richard Barnes> +1 Mirja
[10:41:13] <Martin Thomson> OK, then I reject that thesis.  If you regard this group as an example, I'm not hearing noise, I'm hearing genuine disagreement.
[10:41:24] <JcK> @Martin: not "incapable", just very high risk in terms of either paralysis or coming up with bad results because of a passion: expertise model considering that those most likely to be active are likely to care deeply.
[10:41:30] <Julian Reschke> xml2rfc v3 was done by a design team with open mailing list, and in the end people were not that happy with the outcome
[10:42:06] <Brian Rosen> We have not reached a single fundamental consensus for two meeting cycles
[10:42:08] <Russ Housley> @Julian: even people on the design team were not totally happy
[10:42:15] <Brian Trammell> @mnot: perhaps we should call this an "appointed open model"
[10:42:16] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> @Julian are they really unhappy? I am happy with the output AS A  FIRST DRAFT.
[10:42:27] <Mike StJohns> @marting - this group is not the group we're talking about forming..
[10:42:30] <Julian Reschke> yes, indeed (I'm not that happy either)
[10:42:37] <Brian Trammell> or a "membership" model as opposed to a "fully open" model
[10:42:42] <Phillip Hallam-Baker> @Julian the result has some real issues that need to be fixed.
[10:42:43] <Mike StJohns> @martin - I don't think I have the qualifications for that other group...
[10:43:00] <Richard Barnes> @MSJ - i would also note that design team outcomes ultimately come to the WG for approval
[10:43:09] <englishm> Wondering… what makes this domain different than the domain a WG deals with (in terms of filtering out the voices of people who don’t have useful expert input)?
[10:43:32] <JcK> @BrianTrammell: "membership" is really much closer
[10:43:34] <Julian Reschke> Philip: the other issue is years between discussion, publication, and implementation. Feedback loop not working.
[10:43:36] <Mike StJohns> @richard - yes but... :-)
[10:43:55] <Pete Resnick> I think mnot and msj have actually expressed something discussed in the jabber room that is heading toward consensus.
[10:44:02] <Mike StJohns> its rare that DT decisions get overwritten
[10:44:03] <mnot> @Mike - yes, and the community keeps the IAB and IESG under close watch, and doesn't hesitate to try to turf them out if they don't meet expectations. How does that work with this structure?
[10:44:28] <Richard Barnes> but the point is that the DT has no formal decision authority
[10:45:02] <Eric Rescorla> I was really hoping the LLC would do the personnel stuff
[10:45:06] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - exactly the same way... 2 direct nomcom members, plus the body appointed members - all subject to community approbation
[10:45:15] <mnot> Even our expert?
[10:45:18] <Mike StJohns> @ekr - agree
[10:45:53] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - expert is a hired gun.   If the community has issues they tell the LLC and the LLC board terminates the contract...
[10:46:42] <Martin Thomson> if only it were that simple
[10:47:03] <Mike StJohns> @englishm - basically what i said - relevant expertise... people think they know about publication without actually having the appropriate knowledge...
[10:47:05] <Pete Resnick> The hired gun should not be a final decision maker, though their opinion ought to be taken pretty damn seriously.
[10:47:18] <Mike StJohns> @pete - exactly.  see my draft... :-)
[10:47:20] <mnot> +1 Pete
[10:47:33] <Russ Housley> +1 Pete
[10:48:00] <Pete Resnick> Again, sounds like mnot and msj are speeding toward agreement.
[10:48:01] <Joel Halpern> @Pete I think that works for me.  Assumign we can figure out how to make "taken damn seriously" work.
[10:49:04] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - the RSEB is the approval authority for the Editorial stream..
[10:49:37] <Martin Thomson> Mike, I'm not seeing anything in your draft to suggest that you said "taken damned seriously".  I see voting.
[10:50:23] <Mike StJohns> @martin - the details of how the documents get published and the processes are TBD - but that's where you get the "taken damned seriously" stuff goes..
[10:50:30] <Eric Rescorla> I suspect that my point and Johns are in fact the same
[10:51:12] Lisa Winkler leaves the room
[10:51:36] Lisa Winkler joins the room
[10:51:37] <Mike StJohns> @martin - is there something specific that you'd need to add to the process that was used to publish things like the style guide?
[10:52:20] <Mike StJohns> happy to take text and do a revision
[10:52:23] <Martin Thomson> I'm just questioning whether your model genuinely has the RSx as non-decision-making, but seriously-taken
[10:52:38] <Mike StJohns> RSE is one vote of 8
[10:52:42] <Julian Reschke> (usual reminder that style guide and tooling need to be in sync; something which hasn't been the case for ages)
[10:53:00] <Brian Rosen> Yes!
[10:53:06] <Mike StJohns> @julian - style guide will by necessity preceed the tooling...
[10:53:15] <Mike StJohns> but ultimately should sync
[10:53:15] <mnot> I will be at the beach.
[10:53:32] <Jared Mauch> @mnot (feature?) :-)
[10:53:33] <Julian Reschke> Mike: right now it's out of sync, and has been for a long time
[10:53:39] <Brian Rosen> but you always make a style decision before you get the tooling started, but "effectivity" could be explicit
[10:53:56] <Martin Thomson> Open-loop decision-making is the best sort.
[10:53:57] <Mike StJohns> yup
[10:54:19] <Martin Thomson> That's how you dig some really impressive holes.  Much like the one we dug with xml3rfc
[10:54:48] Phillip Hallam-Baker leaves the room
[10:54:50] <mnot> This was somewhat productive, in terms of finding the start of some common ground.
[10:55:39] <Martin Thomson> Missing Brian C here.  I assume he was double-booked.  Sleeping would be a reasonable conflict too.
[10:55:50] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[10:55:55] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[10:56:07] Francesca Palombini leaves the room
[10:56:08] Dan York_596 leaves the room
[10:56:08] Greg Wood leaves the room
[10:56:09] Jared Mauch leaves the room
[10:56:10] Eric Rescorla leaves the room
[10:56:10] Brian Trammell leaves the room
[10:56:10] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[10:56:11] Lisa Winkler leaves the room
[10:56:12] Lars Eggert leaves the room
[10:56:12] Tommy Pauly leaves the room
[10:56:12] Julian Reschke leaves the room
[10:56:14] Colin Perkins leaves the room
[10:56:14] Mike English leaves the room
[10:56:14] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[10:56:14] Brian Rosen leaves the room
[10:56:16] Pete Resnick leaves the room
[10:56:16] Ted Hardie leaves the room
[10:56:19] <Christian Huitema> bye
[10:56:19] Joel Halpern leaves the room
[10:56:19] Jay Daley_406 leaves the room
[10:56:21] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[10:56:22] Dieter Sibold leaves the room
[10:56:22] Eric Kinnear leaves the room
[10:56:23] Harin Sarda leaves the room
[10:56:24] JcK leaves the room
[10:56:24] Rich Salz leaves the room
[10:56:25] Martin Thomson leaves the room
[10:56:26] Russ Housley leaves the room
[10:56:26] Simon Romano leaves the room
[10:56:28] Cindy Morgan leaves the room
[10:56:29] Karen O'Donoghue leaves the room
[10:56:34] Eric Orth leaves the room
[10:56:35] Sean Turner leaves the room
[10:56:35] Michael StJohns leaves the room
[10:56:40] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[10:56:40] Christian Huitema leaves the room
[10:56:42] mnot leaves the room
[10:56:43] David Schinazi leaves the room
[10:56:47] hardaker leaves the room
[10:56:51] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[10:56:57] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[10:57:02] Takahiro Nemoto leaves the room
[10:57:05] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[10:57:05] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[10:57:05] Lorenzo Miniero leaves the room
[10:57:05] Alexey Melnikov leaves the room
[10:57:05] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[10:57:05] Sandy Ginoza leaves the room
[10:57:05] Alice Russo leaves the room
[10:57:05] John Klensin leaves the room
[10:57:05] Stephen McQuistin leaves the room
[10:57:05] Michael Breuer leaves the room
[10:57:05] Dhruv Dhody leaves the room
[10:57:05] Simon Hicks leaves the room
[10:57:05] Paolo Saviano leaves the room
[10:57:05] Lucas Pardue leaves the room
[10:59:27] Meetecho leaves the room
[11:11:15] Mike StJohns leaves the room
[11:11:27] adrianolddog leaves the room
[11:24:09] englishm leaves the room
[11:25:45] bhoeneis leaves the room
[11:39:52] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[12:04:51] Eliot Lear joins the room
[12:06:45] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[12:16:25] Christian Huitema joins the room
[12:23:26] Christian Huitema leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[15:12:39] lellel joins the room
[15:14:56] lellel leaves the room
[15:52:18] lellel joins the room
[15:52:50] lellel leaves the room
[18:34:17] Jay Daley joins the room
[18:34:28] undefined joins the room
[20:39:54] Mike StJohns joins the room
[20:40:48] Mike StJohns joins the room
[20:40:58] Mike StJohns leaves the room
[21:38:06] Christian Huitema joins the room
[21:51:01] lellel joins the room
[21:52:04] lellel leaves the room
[23:35:53] Christian Huitema leaves the room
[23:55:24] lellel joins the room
[23:55:59] lellel leaves the room