Tuesday, March 9, 2021< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

[11:49:04] sginoza joins the room
[11:49:10] mnot joins the room
[11:50:03] Michael Jenkins_web_102 joins the room
[11:50:03] Francesca Palombini_web_755 joins the room
[11:50:03] Alessandro Amirante_web_970 joins the room
[11:50:03] Eliot Lear_web_889 joins the room
[11:50:19] stpeter joins the room
[11:50:43] Michael StJohns_web_284 joins the room
[11:51:14] Peter Koch_web_402 joins the room
[11:51:29] Adrian Farrel_web_430 joins the room
[11:51:36] Julian Reschke_web_142 joins the room
[11:52:42] Natalie Ennis_web_968 joins the room
[11:53:09] Joel Halpern_web_336 joins the room
[11:53:38] francesca joins the room
[11:53:42] Yoshiro Yoneya_ joins the room
[11:53:51] Sandy Ginoza_web_300 joins the room
[11:54:49] Lars Eggert_web_351 joins the room
[11:55:26] Cindy Morgan_web_382 joins the room
[11:55:51] Brian Rosen_web_837 joins the room
[11:56:16] Stephen McQuistin_web_327 joins the room
[11:56:31] Rich Salz_web_533 joins the room
[11:56:53] Wes Hardaker_web_611 joins the room
[11:57:01] Kenneth Murchison_web_406 joins the room
[11:58:03] Peter Saint-Andre_web_878 joins the room
[11:58:13] Barry Leiba_web_691 joins the room
[11:58:14] Bron Gondwana_web_504 joins the room
[11:58:16] Dominique Lazanski_web_517 joins the room
[11:58:50] Valery Smyslov_web_200 joins the room
[11:59:08] Alissa Cooper_web_182 joins the room
[11:59:18] Jared Mauch_web_775 joins the room
[11:59:22] Olaf Kolkman joins the room
[11:59:44] Martin Thomson_web_178 joins the room
[11:59:54] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> One of you will have to go home from the ball in tears
[11:59:57] JcK joins the room
[12:00:00] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> maybe both
[12:00:00] Colin Perkins_web_212 joins the room
[12:00:02] Colin Perkins_web_212 leaves the room
[12:00:05] Colin Perkins_web_178 joins the room
[12:00:05] Mark Nottingham_web_725 joins the room
[12:00:23] Bernie Hoeneisen_web_137 joins the room
[12:00:27] bhoeneis joins the room
[12:00:31] Robert Sparks_web_664 joins the room
[12:00:34] <Rich Salz_web_533> HAHA
[12:00:37] <Martin Thomson_web_178> You really don't want to share your screen.
[12:00:48] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472 joins the room
[12:00:58] John Klensin_web_513 joins the room
[12:01:01] <Martin Thomson_web_178> I know too much about what the web site can do to your private stuff.
[12:01:03] Eric Rescorla_web_472 joins the room
[12:01:17] Alissa Cooper_web_182 leaves the room
[12:01:27] Leif Johansson_web_248 joins the room
[12:01:33] <mnot> _MT proceeds to own Eliot's computer…_
[12:01:42] Mirja Kühlewind_web_210 joins the room
[12:01:46] Alissa Cooper_web_811 joins the room
[12:02:00] RjS joins the room
[12:02:25] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_222 joins the room
[12:02:27] <mnot> @Eliot, when you get a chance if you could either use a standalone mic, or turn the gain on your mic down, it would be much appreciated.
[12:02:45] <mnot> Thanks!
[12:02:49] Michelle Cotton_web_454 joins the room
[12:02:54] Deborah Brungard_web_585 joins the room
[12:02:56] <stpeter> Hmm, I have no audio via Meetecho...
[12:03:02] Thomas Duffy_web_361 joins the room
[12:03:11] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> datapoint: working for me
[12:03:26] <stpeter> brb, then
[12:03:29] Karen Staley_web_942 joins the room
[12:03:31] Robert Wilton_web_221 joins the room
[12:03:48] Russ White_web_843 joins the room
[12:04:05] Dan Romascanu_web_802 joins the room
[12:04:14] Peter Saint-Andre_web_878 leaves the room
[12:04:18] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> I am reminded - I have a spare icecream in the work freezer for just such an occasion :)
[12:04:50] <mnot> The IGA across the road closed five minutes ago :(
[12:04:52] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> the Czech beer is in the fridge above it
[12:05:05] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> doh!  the 7/11 in the city is open all night long, all night
[12:05:29] Gonzalo Camarillo_web_100 joins the room
[12:06:00] Dieter Sibold_web_278 joins the room
[12:06:16] <stpeter> FYI, for the moment I had to listen to the audio stream rather than using Meetecho, so if I need to say something I will channel it through the Jabber room.
[12:06:29] rjsparks joins the room
[12:06:54] Greg Wood_web_310 joins the room
[12:07:04] <Martin Thomson_web_178> stpeter, I had to do that last time, but I think Byron fixed my problem.
[12:07:10] Dan Romascanu_web_802 leaves the room
[12:07:31] Pete Resnick_web_296 joins the room
[12:08:23] Alexa Morris_web_459 joins the room
[12:08:27] Gonzalo Camarillo_web_100 leaves the room
[12:08:43] Mike StJohns joins the room
[12:08:58] <Mike StJohns> *sigh* This is the third jabber name we've used for this group...
[12:09:29] David Schinazi_web_907 joins the room
[12:09:43] <Brian Rosen_web_837> huh.  I wasn't aware it changed.  What is it now?
[12:10:17] <Martin Thomson_web_178> anyone can delegate; ISE just needs to be more proactive than others in doing so, because there is no backup if they fail to do so
[12:10:36] <Lars Eggert_web_351> mt: same for irtf chair
[12:11:01] <Martin Thomson_web_178> lars: sure.  Though maybe we could allow the IRSG to make an appointment in their absence.
[12:11:02] <Mike StJohns> past were rfced-futures, rfcedfp - now rffefdp
[12:11:07] <Mike StJohns> rfcefdp
[12:11:13] <Colin Perkins_web_178> IRTF chair can ask the IRSG for a replacement
[12:11:15] <mnot> the name of this group has always confused me
[12:11:43] <Martin Thomson_web_178> just doing the dance, probably
[12:12:12] <Martin Thomson_web_178> reloading...
[12:12:15] Brad Gorman_web_520 joins the room
[12:12:19] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> Sorry, thought I was in another group queue :)
[12:12:28] <Brian Rosen_web_837> Ha!
[12:12:52] Michael Breuer_web_578 joins the room
[12:13:01] Dominique Lazanski_web_517 leaves the room
[12:13:08] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> I'm having to multitask between this and dprive
[12:13:12] Dominique Lazanski_web_592 joins the room
[12:13:16] <Mike StJohns> there really isn't any need to delegate for the ISE.  The burn rate for the AB is small and the only time this might be of concern is during an interregnum.  Unless the document directly impacts the ISE, post a "not present" vote and move on
[12:13:47] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike, that seems like a different position than what you said last time.  Care to explain?
[12:13:56] <Brian Rosen_web_837> I think some participants don't want a "not present" option
[12:14:23] Alissa Cooper_web_811 leaves the room
[12:14:32] Alissa Cooper_web_131 joins the room
[12:14:37] Brad Gorman_web_520 leaves the room
[12:17:06] Leif Johansson_web_248 leaves the room
[12:18:02] <Mike StJohns> just "harm" instead I think...
[12:20:34] <Mike StJohns> @ekr - I'm assuming that a concern vote can be overridden by yes votes...
[12:20:48] <Joel Halpern_web_336> We will get to resolution in a minute
[12:20:48] <Martin Thomson_web_178> we have to have a clear distinction between "inconvenient" and "really bad"
[12:20:57] <Brian Rosen_web_837> if we have alternates (in any form) do we need "recuse"?
[12:21:08] <Mike StJohns> @martin - not sure where its different... its possible I'm misremembering
[12:21:20] <Colin Perkins_web_178> "significant harm" seems to reflect that distinction
[12:21:37] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> I  could live with that
[12:21:42] <Martin Thomson_web_178> "significant" or "serious" as emphasis is, I think, very important
[12:21:49] <Mike StJohns> @martin oh... we're talking about recusal... sorry - you're right...
[12:21:58] <Martin Thomson_web_178> if this will cost a little money to implement: not good enough.
[12:22:25] <Mike StJohns> @martin et al "significicant" and "serious" are just words.  In the end its a decision by the person that votes
[12:22:51] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike, yes.  But these are judgment calls made by humans and the *flavour* matters.
[12:23:34] <francesca> ekr can you mute?
[12:23:38] <Rich Salz_web_533> +1 Martin.
[12:23:39] <francesca> (or leave the mic queue)
[12:24:08] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> I would assume that with any label for any vote that along with it will come documentation, minimally in the form of email, that states why that vote label was chosen.  So a huge number of labels should ideally not be needed unless they need corresponding differences in handling process steps.  Because it should be clear in "some text" why that label was chosen by that person, even if the name isn't an exact match.
[12:24:28] <Mike StJohns> @martin - what you think of as "serious" might be "trivial" to me.. and vice versa... at the point of the vote, 30 people of the WG may say "its just a little harm", while the AB member might say "yes, just a little harm, but I can't support it"...
[12:24:53] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> francesca as far as I can tell I am mute
[12:25:04] <francesca> now you are :)
[12:25:13] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> AFAICT I was before
[12:25:16] <Brian Rosen_web_837> i muted him
[12:25:17] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> Unless someone remote muted me
[12:25:18] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> ah ok
[12:25:56] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike, absolutely.  But if we establish that you are expected to believe something to be significant (and that a reasonable person might agree with you), then our disagreement might lead you not to raise a concern that others might see as being petty.
[12:25:56] Dominique Lazanski_web_592 leaves the room
[12:25:59] Dominique Lazanski_web_693 joins the room
[12:26:37] <Martin Thomson_web_178> That sort of concern is best addressed by going to the working group and engaging in discussion.  Not a writ from upon high.
[12:26:47] <Rich Salz_web_533> I agree, it sets a mental barrier which I think is important for a gatekeeper body.
[12:29:05] <stpeter> OT: Paid Professional Editor = PPE? ;-)
[12:29:35] <mnot> I am bearing with you Eliot, but it'd be better to just let us discuss it.
[12:29:48] <Rich Salz_web_533> so the stream heads are _ex officio_
[12:30:00] <mnot> I resent having the discussing chopped up like this
[12:30:03] <Colin Perkins_web_178> It's "stream heads' or "stream heads or their delegate"?
[12:30:11] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Eliot, try headphones?
[12:30:23] <Martin Thomson_web_178> RSA is not a stream head.
[12:30:47] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Colin - I assumed that the role of stream head could be delegated, and did not want to get into a second layer of delegation.
[12:31:00] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Pigs and chickens is the analogy Ekr needs.
[12:31:13] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> @MT: perfect!
[12:31:14] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Rich - if you mean by ex-officio "by virtue of their position" then yes, they are all ex-officio.
[12:31:15] <Colin Perkins_web_178> @joel okay, that makes sense
[12:32:11] Stanislav Smyshlyaev_web_762 joins the room
[12:32:16] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> RSA should participate in the AP meetings but not have a ballot on documents (also given I assume th RSA might be involved in authoring in a bunch of cases)
[12:32:28] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> @Mirja: that would be fine by me
[12:33:05] <Lars Eggert_web_351> +1 mirja. also, might be possible for the AP to go into "exec session" w/o the RSA when needed
[12:33:31] <JcK> If the advisor is not responsible for the integrity and consistence of the servies -- across streams -- there better be someone who is.  And someone else probably breaks the model.
[12:33:32] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> As someone who hasn't been following this, "rsa" is really hard to search for.
[12:33:33] <Mike StJohns> @lars - hell no
[12:33:53] Karen O'Donoghue_web_600 joins the room
[12:34:22] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> rfc series advisor
[12:34:27] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> (RSA)
[12:34:36] Stanislav Smyshlyaev_web_762 leaves the room
[12:34:57] <Bron Gondwana_web_504>
[12:35:15] <Martin Thomson_web_178> RSA is a completely unused TLA Jeffrey.  I can see no cause for confusion.
[12:35:46] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> :)
[12:35:48] <Julian Reschke_web_142> make it "RSÄ"
[12:36:25] <mnot> The whole structure is responsible, not just one person. We have discussed this.
[12:36:37] <Martin Thomson_web_178> +1 mnot
[12:36:50] <Rich Salz_web_533> @joel: yes.  it collapses multiple bullets into one word
[12:36:52] <mnot> We succeed together, we fail together.
[12:37:16] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - that sounds a bit "Qanon" is
[12:37:19] <Mike StJohns> ish
[12:37:30] <Colin Perkins_web_178> isn't harmful to the wider readership then harmful to the stream as a whole?
[12:37:35] <mnot> Mike - that thought crossed my mind after i sent — urgh.
[12:37:40] <Colin Perkins_web_178> s/stream/series/
[12:37:52] <Mike StJohns> @colin - not necessarily
[12:38:05] <Mike StJohns> @colin nor vice versa
[12:38:17] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> @mnot we can't let racists appropriate all the true things though
[12:38:25] <stpeter> One hopes that the broader community of customers are involved with the WG, but in any case AB members can raise those issues too, no?
[12:38:54] <Mike StJohns> @stpeter - yes, but may not be in there stream's interest to do so...
[12:39:12] <Mike StJohns> can't think of an example right now... but the idea is to make sure corner cases are covered
[12:39:21] <Mike StJohns> their
[12:39:25] <Martin Thomson_web_178> This angle Joel is pushing on seems to be a good thing.  If we find someone to represent "the masses", which seems impossible, then appoint them.
[12:39:35] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> BDFL
[12:40:05] <Lars Eggert_web_351> @joel i thought you recuse on *decisions* not on discussions?
[12:40:41] Taiji Kimura_web_328 joins the room
[12:40:49] <Martin Thomson_web_178> No halfway appointments seems reasonable.  I just don't see any basis for appointing anyone else yet.
[12:40:55] <mnot> If this person is assumed to be a long-term participant, there need to be corresponding constraints upon them. I think that's what we're really discussing here.
[12:41:14] <mnot> s/participant/appointee/
[12:41:21] <Mike StJohns> @lars - both might be required for some documents
[12:41:51] David Schinazi_web_907 leaves the room
[12:41:57] David Schinazi_web_762 joins the room
[12:42:21] <Martin Thomson_web_178> The decision-making power of this person is going to be strong.  They will be spending the hours, probably disproportionately more than anyone else in the process.  So I am not concerned that the RSA will be disenfranchised in any way.
[12:45:38] Li Jianfei_web_943 joins the room
[12:46:27] Li Jianfei_web_943 leaves the room
[12:46:34] Li Jianfei_web_612 joins the room
[12:46:48] <Martin Thomson_web_178> I think that Joel's formulation here is great.  Even for a larger set of streams.  If there are 8 streams, then a single stream being adversely affected still should be grounds for returning a proposal to the WG.  Voting leads to the wrong dynamics.  So I'm opposed to Mike's suggestion of simple voting.  And I'm further opposed to increasing the size of the group to make the voting pool more dilute.
[12:47:58] <Mike StJohns> One of the things I'm trying to avoid putting into the pot is that the IAB directly or indirectly will appoint 3 members of the board... I believe that we need to balance that with some additional folk
[12:48:25] <Brian Rosen_web_837> Mirja do you still want to be in queue?
[12:48:27] Taiji Kimura_web_328 leaves the room
[12:48:31] <Martin Thomson_web_178> I am aware of that, but that is at so remote a remove that I would suggest the IAB lacks any real power.
[12:48:36] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> sorry#
[12:48:48] Dominique Lazanski_web_693 leaves the room
[12:48:55] Dominique Lazanski_web_532 joins the room
[12:48:58] <Martin Thomson_web_178> To suggest that Adrian might somehow be beholden to the IAB is not that plausible, for example.
[12:49:12] <Mike StJohns> @martin - Yeah, but that's adrian.  
[12:49:15] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> But all that money they give me?
[12:49:16] <mnot> MT +1
[12:49:57] Stephen McQuistin_web_327 leaves the room
[12:53:11] Li Jianfei_web_612 leaves the room
[12:53:53] <Martin Thomson_web_178> .Using the word "vote" is not helping so much.  I think that "this person gets to block a proposal" is the key.
[12:54:10] <Mike StJohns> I give as a counter example the IAB somewhat substantially reworking the RSOC on its own nickel and AFAICT from public information - without input from the RFCed.   I may be misunderstanding what happened, but I believe that was a substantial contribution to Heather deciding not to reup.
[12:54:57] <Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_222> Given the way people are appointed in IETF, it really doesn't matter. There are no representatives in IETF, they are all appointed by Nomcon which is deliberately non representative.
[12:55:02] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Ok, fine point.  If they can enlist another, the person can block a proposal.
[12:55:16] <Mike StJohns> @PHB - RSOC
[12:55:59] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> "Raise hand" == yes; "do not raise hand" == no?
[12:56:04] <Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_222> where?
[12:56:07] <mnot> Starting with this question doesn't really help when the concerns are around what forces place a constraint upon them
[12:56:13] Dieter Sibold_web_278 leaves the room
[12:56:22] <Martin Thomson_web_178> This tool is awful.  Why do we not just have a voting tool?
[12:56:27] <Joel Halpern_web_336> The raise hand tool in the top bar of  meetecho.
[12:56:29] <JcK> Voting yes, but have not figured the tool out yet.
[12:56:30] <mnot> I am OK with some formulations of the RSA being on the board, but not others.
[12:56:34] <stpeter> What is the threat model behind the concern about having IAB-appointed members? Typically in our community people who are appointed turn out to be quite independent-minded and don't exactly do the bidding of the appointing body.
[12:56:41] <Russ White_web_843> I can't figure the tool out, either
[12:56:42] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> Martin: It's very important to exactly approximately represent what we an do in-person!
[12:56:47] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> s/an/can/
[12:56:50] <Robert Wilton_web_221> Voting tool is top right, 5th icon in
[12:56:55] <Pete Resnick_web_296> It's the icon that looks like a bar graph.
[12:57:11] <mnot> Is that a good description of rough consensus, Pete?
[12:57:12] <JcK> Got it
[12:57:15] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Let's talk about consensus...
[12:57:19] <Lars Eggert_web_351> why does it say 45 participants but there are 60 people in the call?
[12:57:28] <Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_222> Oh two ways to raise my hand....
[12:57:32] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> jabber users
[12:57:34] <Colin Perkins_web_178> some on jabber and meetecho?
[12:57:34] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> because not everyone has done either.
[12:57:46] Peter Koch_web_402 leaves the room
[12:57:47] <Pete Resnick_web_296> @mnot: Only getting a sense of the room from what I heard. ;-)
[12:57:49] <Lars Eggert_web_351> ah
[12:57:50] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> eg, as the "lead" I'm not doing either raise/don't-rase so am one of the 15
[12:58:14] <stpeter> FWIW, those of us on the audio stream + Jabber room can't see the poll question.
[12:58:21] <Martin Thomson_web_178> proof of absence of consensus achieved
[12:58:35] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> the tool is still not clear
[12:58:43] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Martin I agree.
[12:58:43] <Martin Thomson_web_178> oh ffs, let's limit ourselves by the tool
[12:59:08] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> Maybe we can use this tool for the AB to vote on things?
[12:59:19] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> Adrian Farrell, we have consensus on that!
[12:59:21] <mnot> but you had to hit 'do not raise hand' — that was a positive action
[12:59:34] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> yes let's design the board around this tool
[12:59:35] <Martin Thomson_web_178> yes, no, abstain
[12:59:46] <mnot> I am voting against them having a vote because there aren't yet assurances in place as discussed
[13:00:03] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> assurances?
[13:00:17] <mnot> we haven't resolved the actual issues at hand
[13:00:17] <Martin Thomson_web_178> pigs and chickens
[13:00:20] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> It's a different constituency. Only 44 participatns!
[13:00:23] <mnot> exactly
[13:00:40] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> mnot: i.e. we should accept the lack of consensus for this meeting, and move on to other questions in the hope that resolving those will help get to consensus here?
[13:00:46] <Martin Thomson_web_178> The chicken says to the pig, "Let's start a breakfast restaurant called ham and eggs."
[13:01:07] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @martin I really think that is a misleading analysis of the situation.
[13:01:07] <mnot> we should discuss how to make the chickens acceptably pig-like regarding the constraints upon them
[13:01:09] <Robert Wilton_web_221> One suggestion (before I drop for another meeting):  Allow the community to elect a voting member (5th person) to the committee that could be the RSE/A or someone else.
[13:01:17] David Schinazi_web_762 leaves the room
[13:01:21] David Schinazi_web_724 joins the room
[13:01:41] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> community==nomcom?
[13:01:48] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> elect or select?
[13:01:57] <Martin Thomson_web_178> What is the requirement that people who want a voting member want to address?
[13:02:01] <mnot> Go ahead and ask whether the number of 'concerns' raised changes how people feel?
[13:02:03] <Martin Thomson_web_178> I heard community representation.
[13:02:25] <Mike StJohns> @robert - I suggested 2 nomcom selected and 1 ISOC selected.
[13:02:27] <Colin Perkins_web_178> Should the RSE/A not have a vote?
Raise: 9
Do not raise: 13
Is the RSE/A a voting member of the approval board?
Raise: 15
Do not raise: 8
[13:02:41] <mnot> I think that adding more people muddies things.
[13:02:41] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> I am about to vanish for dprive
[13:03:13] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I don't know; we can't agree and therefore keep making the RFC editor model more and more complicated...
[13:03:46] <Mike StJohns> @mnot makes it harder for thegroup to be captured by one or two people..
[13:04:22] <Martin Thomson_web_178> yes
[13:04:32] Robert Wilton_web_221 leaves the room
[13:04:54] <Mike StJohns> @martin - again - I don't want a "block" vote, I want an "approval" vote.  E.g. majority approves the document it goes...
[13:05:06] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike, I don't want that.
[13:05:18] Alexa Morris_web_459 leaves the room
[13:05:30] Deborah Brungard_web_585 leaves the room
[13:05:37] Deborah Brungard_web_131 joins the room
[13:05:40] <Mike StJohns> I understand, but by casting this as a ":block" similar to the IESG discuss you are creating your own power problem
[13:05:47] <Martin Thomson_web_178> As I said, simple majority leads to minorities being overridden.  And all streams are minorities.
[13:06:28] <Mike StJohns> and if the ISE or the IRTF is doing somethign with their documents that does not fit the overall look and feel, then it should be stopped...
[13:06:53] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Functionally, it's a block.  Joel's framing (which is good) is that each becomes convinced that this would do significant harm to their stake.
[13:06:54] <Julian Reschke_web_142> I'm a bit concerned that this would treat all streams as if they had the same importance (getting my asbestos)
[13:06:55] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> @chairs: you should probably force down hands of people you have heard from (as they're talking)
[13:06:59] <mnot> @Mike - I see that, but finding people who are invested in this enough to put their hands up is going to be hard if it's not part of a larger role. I worry about the quality of candidates.
[13:07:00] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> eg, mark
[13:08:19] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> If the RSA is an "external" paid expert I don't see how this person can practically be a voting member. If the RSA is nomcom selected that would be something else but not sure that's the right process to find the expertise we are looking for.
[13:08:45] <mnot> I do agree that making them ex officio on the board makes a lot more sense
[13:08:57] <Eric Rescorla_web_472> sorry, gtg
[13:08:57] <Martin Thomson_web_178> ex officio would be fine
[13:09:02] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - would you ban John Levine from voting?
[13:09:03] Eric Rescorla_web_472 leaves the room
[13:09:23] <Rich Salz_web_533> or any predecessor?
[13:09:24] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> @Mirja. I am stumbling on "not practical" Can you give an eg?
[13:09:25] <mnot> John is *not* the expert that would fill this role, AIUI
[13:09:28] <Pete Resnick_web_296> Remind me: Who has hiring/firing authority over the RSA?
[13:09:36] Robert Wilton_web_764 joins the room
[13:09:39] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Pete: LLC ED probably
[13:09:47] <Mike StJohns> @pete LLC - not the LLC ED
[13:09:50] <mnot> Pete: the LLC, at the direction of the community. That's the problematic bit
[13:10:18] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - give that the community does not direct, it may not even suggest
[13:10:37] <mnot> The broader interests of the series can't be represented directly by ANYONE. The question is how best to effect it indirectly. Given that people who are on the streams are heavily invested in its success, that seems like a reasonable proxy.
[13:10:51] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - so what (John not the expert)
[13:10:53] <Mike StJohns> ?
[13:10:54] <mnot> Mike: exactly. And given that the community often is conflicted
[13:10:58] <csp> +1 @mnot
[13:10:59] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> By not practically I mean that I think only people who know the community reasonably well are probably able to vote accordingly
[13:11:09] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Is that a sonar ping?
[13:11:13] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Mirja I do not understand why voting rights on the board are related to how the person is selected.  You seem to be making other assumptions that are not spelled out.
[13:11:19] <Wes Hardaker_web_611> one ping only
[13:11:23] <Rich Salz_web_533> Brian's jabber notification
[13:11:26] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> Thanks, I understand your view
[13:11:29] <mnot> Mike: it was asked whether john should not be allowed to vote on a board. I was pointing out that's not relevant
[13:11:44] <mnot> Wes: I'd say we have one chance in three...
[13:12:36] <mnot> They will have a voice, and they will be listened to. We're talking about whether they can block, not whether they can speak.
[13:12:44] Deborah Brungard_web_131 leaves the room
[13:12:51] Deborah Brungard_web_281 joins the room
[13:12:54] <Mike StJohns> @mnot the fact that you think its not relevant is a problem.   We can't treat the RSE worse than we treat any regular person.. even a regular person that participates loudly in the IETF
[13:12:58] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I think we still don't have a common view about what the RSA position is and what kind of person we would like to see in this position
[13:13:27] <mnot> Mike: if that's how you feel, why are we not letting the WG make its own decisions? That would be most respecting of the community and regular people.
[13:13:58] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> @Mirja +1
[13:14:21] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - that seems like a bit of a non sequitur
[13:14:27] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> And that actually makes a big difference to this "voting" debate
[13:14:29] <Brian Rosen_web_837> reminder that the WG+AB is a compromise from people who wanted only a board, and people who wanted only a WG
[13:14:41] <JcK> @Mirja: that is another elephant in this eliphant herd-filled room.
[13:14:55] <mnot> Mike: I was thinking the same about your comment. We seem to be missing each others' points.
[13:15:17] <stpeter> is the GitHub repo, I believe
[13:15:22] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472>
[13:15:47] <mnot> RSA FTW
[13:15:58] <Martin Thomson_web_178> RSA is the best
[13:16:22] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472> Only if their role is encrypted.
[13:16:38] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Fully homomorphic
[13:17:06] <Pete Resnick_web_296> So we have a representative of each stream head (who are presumably answerable to community) as voting members of the board. The LLC (who are also answerable to the community) hire a person to be on the board (whether in an advisory non-voting role or a voting role). There's clearly a difference, but I'm not sure the RSEA is any less answerable to the community.
[13:17:21] <Julian Reschke_web_142> "Advisor to Rfc SEries"
[13:17:41] <Pete Resnick_web_296> Just trying to get my head around this.
[13:17:51] Yaakov Stein_web_823 joins the room
[13:17:53] <stpeter> JcK: I'll likely post to the list following up on your comment about constituencies such as the procurement community. (1) Presumably people from those communities will be involved in the WG if we can convince them to do so (2) It's unclear why people from those communities need to be on the Approval Board (3) It's unclear why stream managers wouldn't care about the needs of their customers.
[13:18:02] <Brian Rosen_web_837> part of the issue is how we get the attention of the right people to apply for the role.  "Editor" may help.   As with most titles, they aren't really important
[13:18:24] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - I used John L as an example because he's a long term participant here that we're currently paying to full a role.  If the argument for not giving the RSE a vote is they aren't part of the community and don't understand them. (as Mirja just said), then would you exclude John from a vote?
[13:18:43] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Brian: "Editor" might set the wrong expectations given that job description.
[13:19:11] <mnot> @Mike: that's not my concern with having the RSE block things (let's get away from 'vote').
[13:19:19] <Russ White_web_843> might it help to expand "recuse" to also mean "I also don't have the expertise to vote on this right now ..." then ask anyone who takes this position to recuse themselves for some period of time -- until they are more able to make substantial judgments
[13:19:24] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Mirja I am expecting that the most likely outcome is that the RSA is not a current membe3re of the community.  I also assume that they will not cause objections or termoil until they do understand the process on the basis that they are a professional.
[13:19:36] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> @StP That looks good, but it is unclear that we know who we should be dragging to the WG, how we would persuade them to come if we knew about them, and how we would not squash their participation
[13:19:44] <Mike StJohns> @russ - then for the streams at least - why would you appoint them?
[13:20:00] <Russ White_web_843> I'm thinking about the RSE position specifically
[13:20:00] <Mike StJohns> @Joel +1
[13:20:01] Jared Mauch_web_775 leaves the room
[13:20:14] <Russ White_web_843> RSA -- whatever the name is :-)
[13:20:40] Russ White_web_843 leaves the room
[13:20:40] Dominique Lazanski_web_532 leaves the room
[13:20:44] Russ White_web_246 joins the room
[13:20:49] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Whatever happens here, the approval process needs to be time-bounded.
[13:20:52] Dominique Lazanski_web_929 joins the room
[13:21:02] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> MT +1
[13:21:07] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Martin Yes, but I did not want to mandate the time bound at this point.
[13:21:13] <mnot> Ah, that's a good point.
[13:21:14] <stpeter> @Adrian Farrel_web_430 This doesn't seem all that different from how we know who to drag into technical working groups from, say, the operator community. We need to do the outreach in any case.
[13:21:20] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_472 leaves the room
[13:21:25] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842 joins the room
[13:21:37] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Just a minor niggle, but once asked, the approval board needs to give an answer in a set time.  I should open an issue.
[13:21:55] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> @StP ...and we have such a good history of getting that right ;-)
[13:22:25] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Would you say that IETF participants are professionals by that measure?
[13:22:46] Yaakov Stein_web_823 leaves the room
[13:23:06] <stpeter> @Adrian Farrel_web_430 I'm not saying we've gotten it right anywhere, but I don't expect that just putting someone on the Approval Board from the procurement community will solve the problem either (and might in fact make things worse).
[13:23:23] <Adrian Farrel_web_430> ack
[13:23:34] <mnot> I'm not concerned by this person being an 'outsider' — it's not even clear what that really means in our community.
[13:23:42] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> bron that's what the wg is for
[13:24:01] <csp> This is the advisory board, not the WG!
[13:24:06] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> then what's the point of a board?
[13:24:36] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Let's not erect strawmen here.
[13:24:41] <Martin Thomson_web_178> This is already hard enough.
[13:25:15] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I just said, as with every community, it really takes time to understand the community
[13:25:27] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> and we need to make it possible to give a new person that time
[13:25:58] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> sure, so a decent person will either recuse themselves or take advice
[13:26:01] <stpeter> @csp s/advisory/approval/
[13:26:06] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> and a non-decent person will get fired
[13:26:10] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> in the consensus process it should be less important if a voice is minor
[13:26:21] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> it's what the voice says
[13:26:21] <csp> @stpeter yes, sorry
[13:26:52] <stpeter> @csp that gets to what Martin is saying about contributing vs. deciding
[13:26:52] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> Mirja: In theory, but that theory also says the AB isn't necessary since they're all represented on the WG.
[13:27:12] <Russ White_web_246> @bron -- correct ... recusal needs to be expanded to mean "I don't have the knowledge at this point to make a judgment" ... but I think this is the best solution
[13:27:26] <mnot> +1 MT
[13:27:27] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I really just want to make the hiring as easy as possible (which will still probably not be easy)
[13:27:32] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> "ex officio" == nonvoting?
[13:27:48] <Pete Resnick_web_296> @JY: No, they are not equivalent.
[13:27:52] <Rich Salz_web_533> no.  It means "by virtue of their position"
[13:27:57] <Barry Leiba_web_691> ex officio does not imply non-voting
[13:28:23] <Barry Leiba_web_691> The IETF Chair is an ex officio IAB member, and has a vote.
[13:28:30] <Rich Salz_web_533> That mistake is a common one, tho.
[13:28:37] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Martin - I do not know why you recast ex-officio as non-voting in your verbal comments.
[13:28:53] <mnot> Let's assume that we're talking about non-voting but otherwise full member.
[13:29:07] <mnot> (rather than rathole on terminology :)
[13:29:07] <JcK> I was not thinking of the vote as a carrot.  I was thinking about "no" vote being a hiring obstruction to hiring _unless_ we erect a good deal of structure to prevent their opinion from being dismissed out of hand.
[13:29:14] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> What does it imply here then? The RSE/A is by definition ex-officio since they're on the board as a result of being the RSE/A, so why are folks saying "if they're ex-officio"?
[13:29:18] <Mike StJohns> oh sigh - I just had a bad thought.  a) who appoints the WG chairs? b) is the RSA the WG chair?
[13:29:24] <Martin Thomson_web_178> sorry, I should have been clearer.  I meant non-voting.
[13:29:35] Thomas Duffy_web_361 leaves the room
[13:29:39] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> Thanks :)
[13:29:46] <mnot> MIke: that's been discussed, I think.
[13:30:00] <Mike StJohns> so who appoints the WG chairs?
[13:30:11] <mnot> uhhh
[13:30:17] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> yes, let's rather find a way to ensure that the RSA opinion is accordingly handled in the WG
[13:30:18] <Mike StJohns> Yeah... that's what I though
[13:30:21] <mnot> good q. The board?
[13:30:25] <Martin Thomson_web_178> popular vote!
[13:30:30] <stpeter> It's about addressing the issue, not placating the person. cf RFC 7282
[13:30:40] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> The RSA is the shepherd of all docs that the RSA is not authoring?
[13:31:07] <mnot> I would say that any board member being the WG chair is a pretty fundamental conflict of interest.
[13:31:08] <Martin Thomson_web_178> So I agree with Joel about the 2 being important, but 1 is enough to delay progress significantly.
[13:31:42] <JcK> @Joel: +1
[13:32:54] <Joel Halpern_web_336> Delay seems to be a non-issue.  This is all about strategic direction.  Spending an extra 2 or 3 weeks to get it done is fine.
[13:33:19] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> +1 Pete.
[13:34:21] <Mike StJohns> +joel +pete
[13:35:18] Shu-Fang Hsu_web_742 joins the room
[13:36:48] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I see the relationship of the RSA to the AP rather like the IETF executive director and the LLC
[13:37:25] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> working closely together but only members with a fixed term are part of the AB
[13:37:39] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> sorry meant AB not AP above
[13:38:06] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> fixed term and somehow community selected
[13:38:30] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @MIrja the IETF ED is appointed by the LLC Board.  The RSA is not appointed by or responsible to the Approval Board.
[13:38:45] <Martin Thomson_web_178> We have clear constraints on stream managers in terms of the grounds on which they can block something.  Not so for this position,.
[13:39:01] <Pete Resnick_web_296> @mt: Please explain.
[13:39:13] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> i guess we didn't fully discuss how the RSA is appointed
[13:39:16] <Pete Resnick_web_296> What are the constraints on the stream managers?
[13:39:26] <csp> We also have clear processes by which stream managers can be removed, if necessary
[13:39:29] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Martin - the way I wrote it, and approval board member can invoke the series harm to the series clause.
[13:39:36] <Joel Halpern_web_336> s/and/any/
[13:39:59] <Martin Thomson_web_178> OK, so the RSE would be able to say that this hurts the ISE stream?
[13:40:18] <Mike StJohns> @mirja - its pretty obvious this will be a search committee followed by the LLC hiring.   That's the core.  There will be edges with some community input.
[13:40:29] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> @eliot you need to get headphones eventually; there is also a lot back ground noise when you are unmuted
[13:40:30] <Mike StJohns> @martin - yes
[13:40:36] <Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842> Martin: +1 that we're so far missing this sort of guidance for the RSE/A: I think they should be veto'ing changes if they think the change would be a serious mistake from a technical publishing standpoint.
[13:40:51] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> and who is part of the search community?
[13:40:57] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> the stream managers?
[13:41:20] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> or who do we set up the search committee?
[13:41:30] Valery Smyslov_web_200 leaves the room
[13:41:31] Lars Eggert_web_351 leaves the room
[13:41:32] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> s/who/how/
[13:41:34] <Mike StJohns> I'd suggested a model in my document...  there are several possibilities
[13:41:35] Valery Smyslov_web_746 joins the room
[13:41:37] Lars Eggert_web_818 joins the room
[13:42:12] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @MIrja - my guess is that we will set up a search committee.  I don't think we should expect the stream heads to be putting in the time and energy that needs.  How we do constitute that?  We need to work that out.
[13:42:17] <Brian Rosen_web_837> great point mnot!
[13:42:21] <Pete Resnick_web_296> @Martin: What are the constraints on the stream managers that you referred to?
[13:42:22] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> if only we had an editor to help us write things down well...
[13:42:37] <mnot> and that's what I get...
[13:42:51] <Mike StJohns> e.g. chaired by the ISE, one of the stream members and one of the at-large members (if we ever get to that discussion)
[13:43:04] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Yes, thanks Joel.  This was helpful.
[13:43:26] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Pete: you can only block something for one of two reasons (in previous slides).
[13:43:27] <stpeter> Bron Gondwana_web_504 - I think someone volunteered ;-)
[13:43:27] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> yes writing down things really helps a lot
[13:43:36] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> this is definitely leaning towards what my initial diversity draft called "consensus by fatigue"
[13:43:43] <Mike StJohns> heh
[13:43:49] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> at least we know now where we disagree...
[13:43:50] <Pete Resnick_web_296> @Martin: But what happens if they block for some other reason?
[13:44:15] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Not legitimate, I guess.
[13:44:31] <Mike StJohns> @martin -= but process wise, what happens?
[13:44:36] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Ask for a vote or for the body that placed them there to replace them.
[13:44:52] <Pete Resnick_web_296> So how does that differ from the RSA?
[13:45:23] <Martin Thomson_web_178> In all the ways in which Alissa's position differs from Jay's.
[13:45:57] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> "ruff ruff"
[13:46:08] <Martin Thomson_web_178> As Mark said, if we get the accountability measures buttoned down neatly, this might work.
[13:46:16] <Mike StJohns> @martin - I mean with the vote?
[13:46:32] <Pete Resnick_web_296> Which in my mind is to say, Jay is much more likely to be fired much more quickly for stepping outside of the lines, incentivizing him not to much more than Alissa.
[13:46:50] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike: read Joel's proposal: each AB member enters one of three positions.  etc...
[13:46:58] Geng-Da Tsai_web_451 joins the room
[13:47:16] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Pete: that depends on the lines being clear.  Which for some things they are.
[13:47:18] Geng-Da Tsai_web_451 leaves the room
[13:47:24] <Mike StJohns> @martin - and a member votes concern and says "I have a bad feeling about this"
[13:47:54] <Martin Thomson_web_178> I don't believe that the lines will be so crisp in matters that pertain to the future of the series.
[13:47:59] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Mike presumably we get a 2 week stall and then the other AB members say no and override the concern.
[13:48:55] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> I don't think the stream manager will turn over every year
[13:48:55] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Mike: so one person saying "Concern" means something goes back to the WG.  But the WG can ask for that to be overridden if the discussion fails to resolve.  Two means that this option is not available.
[13:49:01] <mnot> This feels like reconstituting RSOC
[13:49:08] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> but there is a point every year where a turn over can happen
[13:49:14] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Just say NO to RSOC.
[13:49:18] Shu-Fang Hsu_web_742 leaves the room
[13:49:20] <csp> The stream heads don’t turn over that fast, surely
[13:49:28] <Joel Halpern_web_336> @Martin the way I wrote it, the WG does not even have to ask for the override.  the check is something the AB has to do.
[13:49:31] <Mike StJohns> @martin - that's fine. I think we're on the same page
[13:49:41] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Joel, either works.
[13:49:44] <Mike StJohns> @mnot - except that the AB does not manage the RSA/E
[13:49:58] <Mike StJohns> different set of responsibilities...
[13:50:17] <Martin Thomson_web_178> +1 mnot
[13:50:23] <csp> agree
[13:50:26] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> +1
[13:50:26] Brad Gorman_web_670 joins the room
[13:50:27] <Martin Thomson_web_178> lightweight FTW
[13:50:28] <stpeter> mnot +1 to lightweight
[13:50:36] <Joel Halpern_web_336> +mnot
[13:50:45] Brad Gorman_web_670 leaves the room
[13:51:45] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Proposal: the approval board appoints 2 or 3 chairs.
[13:51:46] <stpeter> "Who will appoint the working group chairs" is a very good question
[13:51:47] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> you must be ... this small to sit on the board
[13:52:01] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Thanks Peter!
[13:52:08] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> +1 to board appoints chairs
[13:52:08] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> Thx!
[13:52:17] <mnot> Eliot: you're clipping again :)
[13:53:00] <stpeter> Oh, I've been around here long enough to know what I'm getting myself into. ;-)
[13:53:14] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Says the author of RFC 6125...
[13:53:21] <Brian Rosen_web_837> another thought on who appoints chairs - ? Nomcom?
[13:53:31] <Mike StJohns> @brian - no please
[13:53:46] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Nomcom seems overweight and indirect
[13:53:59] <Mike StJohns> I need to bail... I'll read the notes later
[13:54:02] Alexey Melnikov_web_104 joins the room
[13:54:07] Michael StJohns_web_284 leaves the room
[13:54:43] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> the AB appoints the chairs based on a call for community feedback
[13:55:15] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> but maybe we should also discuss how often we want to change the chairs?
[13:55:31] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> or renew based on community feedback
[13:57:03] <Martin Thomson_web_178> Late evening Australian Eastern can work, provided that you don't have anyone in Hawaii or Alaska.
[13:57:14] Rich Salz_web_533 leaves the room
[13:57:22] <Lars Eggert_web_818> @eliot, can you say somethign about timelines?
[13:57:30] <Martin Thomson_web_178> it gets very late in NZ though, which is the real problem
[13:57:58] Michelle Cotton_web_454 leaves the room
[13:58:06] Jared Mauch_web_895 joins the room
[14:00:07] Russ White_web_246 leaves the room
[14:00:24] <Joel Halpern_web_336> Eliot is an optimist.
[14:00:59] Robert Wilton_web_764 leaves the room
[14:01:24] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_222 leaves the room
[14:01:28] Adrian Farrel_web_430 leaves the room
[14:01:29] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_880 joins the room
[14:02:09] Joel Halpern_web_336 leaves the room
[14:02:13] Sandy Ginoza_web_300 leaves the room
[14:02:14] Joel Halpern_web_382 joins the room
[14:02:19] Sandy Ginoza_web_629 joins the room
[14:02:27] <RjS> recognize the glacial nature
[14:02:34] Greg Wood_web_310 leaves the room
[14:02:42] <Brian Rosen_web_837> The rock is on the move!
[14:02:48] <Bron Gondwana_web_504> rock on
[14:02:51] Barry Leiba_web_691 leaves the room
[14:02:54] Lars Eggert_web_818 leaves the room
[14:02:54] Valery Smyslov_web_746 leaves the room
[14:03:00] Kenneth Murchison_web_406 leaves the room
[14:03:01] Joel Halpern_web_382 leaves the room
[14:03:03] Julian Reschke_web_142 leaves the room
[14:03:04] Colin Perkins_web_178 leaves the room
[14:03:04] Alexey Melnikov_web_104 leaves the room
[14:03:04] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_210> bye!
[14:03:05] Alissa Cooper_web_131 leaves the room
[14:03:05] Mark Nottingham_web_725 leaves the room
[14:03:06] Francesca Palombini_web_755 leaves the room
[14:03:08] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_880 leaves the room
[14:03:09] Cindy Morgan_web_382 leaves the room
[14:03:09] Pete Resnick_web_296 leaves the room
[14:03:11] John Klensin_web_513 leaves the room
[14:03:13] Martin Thomson_web_178 leaves the room
[14:03:15] francesca leaves the room
[14:03:16] Brian Rosen_web_837 leaves the room
[14:03:19] Natalie Ennis_web_968 leaves the room
[14:03:20] Deborah Brungard_web_281 leaves the room
[14:03:20] Michael Jenkins_web_102 leaves the room
[14:03:21] Robert Sparks_web_664 leaves the room
[14:03:26] Jeffrey Yasskin_web_842 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Alessandro Amirante_web_970 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Eliot Lear_web_889 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Wes Hardaker_web_611 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Bron Gondwana_web_504 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Bernie Hoeneisen_web_137 leaves the room
[14:03:30] Mirja Kühlewind_web_210 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Karen Staley_web_942 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Michael Breuer_web_578 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Karen O'Donoghue_web_600 leaves the room
[14:03:31] David Schinazi_web_724 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Dominique Lazanski_web_929 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Jared Mauch_web_895 leaves the room
[14:03:31] Sandy Ginoza_web_629 leaves the room
[14:06:10] sginoza leaves the room
[14:06:46] Yoshiro Yoneya_ leaves the room
[14:09:10] JcK leaves the room
[14:30:18] mnot leaves the room
[14:44:48] RjS leaves the room
[14:49:21] stpeter leaves the room
[14:59:42] stpeter joins the room
[15:09:59] Mike StJohns leaves the room
[15:17:21] stpeter leaves the room
[15:42:57] stpeter joins the room
[16:00:22] stpeter leaves the room
[16:00:55] stpeter joins the room
[16:05:22] stpeter leaves the room
[18:56:26] bhoeneis leaves the room
[20:20:50] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:24:57] csp leaves the room
[20:25:01] csp joins the room
[20:38:40] zulipbot joins the room
[20:38:57] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:39:00] zulipbot joins the room
[20:39:23] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:39:31] zulipbot joins the room
[20:39:52] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
[20:42:32] zulipbot joins the room
[20:43:36] zulipbot leaves the room: Disconnected: closed
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!