IETF
rfcefdp
rfcefdp@jabber.ietf.org
Thursday, July 29, 2021< ^ >
Room Configuration
Room Occupants

GMT+0
[20:00:17] stpeter joins the room
[20:03:00] Yoshiro Yoneya joins the room
[20:08:34] Meetecho joins the room
[20:15:03] Tobia Castaldi_web_153 joins the room
[20:15:03] Eric Kinnear_web_304 joins the room
[20:15:03] Pete Resnick_web_831 joins the room
[20:15:03] Paolo Saviano_web_221 joins the room
[20:15:03] Randy Bush_web_280 joins the room
[20:15:18] Pete Resnick_web_831 leaves the room
[20:16:09] Eliot Lear_web_930 joins the room
[20:16:35] Brian Rosen_web_220 joins the room
[20:18:18] <Eric Kinnear_web_304> Settings in the top right > Manage Slides
[20:18:59] meetecho-alexamirante joins the room
[20:22:24] Michael Breuer_web_542 joins the room
[20:22:57] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Thanks, Eric
[20:24:35] Joel Halpern_web_329 joins the room
[20:24:59] Wes Hardaker_web_591 joins the room
[20:25:01] Cindy Morgan_web_290 joins the room
[20:25:34] Mark McFadden_web_559 joins the room
[20:26:22] Lucy Lynch_web_841 joins the room
[20:26:45] Jay Daley_web_213 joins the room
[20:27:21] Olaf Kolkman_web_228 joins the room
[20:27:25] Adrian Farrel_web_628 joins the room
[20:27:30] Peter Saint-Andre_web_550 joins the room
[20:28:29] Lisa Winkler_web_741 joins the room
[20:28:32] Lucas Pardue_web_607 joins the room
[20:28:34] <stpeter> For noise cancellation, I've heard that https://krisp.ai/ is pretty good.
[20:28:52] Martin Thomson_web_536 joins the room
[20:29:19] <Eliot Lear_web_930> still looking for note takers...
[20:29:38] Robert Sparks_web_424 joins the room
[20:29:43] Brian Carpenter_web_296 joins the room
[20:29:56] Martin Duke_web_778 joins the room
[20:29:58] <Martin Thomson_web_536> does this meeting have an agenda?
[20:30:00] <stpeter> Normally I'd volunteer to take notes, but I might be otherwise engaged with my document editor hat on.
[20:30:11] <Martin Thomson_web_536> I can take notes
[20:30:16] <Eliot Lear_web_930> yes- thanks, martin
[20:30:19] Alexey Melnikov_web_870 joins the room
[20:30:24] <Martin Thomson_web_536> More so if you provide me with an agenda
[20:30:26] Mirja Kühlewind_web_926 joins the room
[20:30:34] Christian Elmerot_web_757 joins the room
[20:30:35] Kenneth Murchison_web_930 joins the room
[20:30:38] <Martin Thomson_web_536> datatracker doesn't even have materials for this
[20:30:43] Pete Resnick_web_740 joins the room
[20:30:50] <Eliot Lear_web_930> huh?  I uploaded everything.  that's weird
[20:30:50] Michelle Cotton_web_919 joins the room
[20:31:00] <Cindy Morgan_web_290> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/agenda-111-rfcefdp-00
[20:31:06] <Martin Thomson_web_536> it might be the slightly unusual status that is breaking dt
[20:31:18] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> Note Well
Agenda Bashing
draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model-00 issues
AOB
[20:31:23] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> brief
[20:31:29] <Martin Thomson_web_536> Yes.  Brief.
[20:31:35] <Olaf Kolkman_web_228> Whenever I join this group I feel a bit as an ARSE
[20:31:40] Alessandro Amirante_web_827 joins the room
[20:31:51] <Jay Daley_web_213> Only this group Olaf?
[20:31:58] <Brian Carpenter_web_296> Hey, it's Friday for some of us!
[20:32:09] Jonathan Lennox_web_420 joins the room
[20:32:21] Martin Duke_web_778 leaves the room
[20:32:23] <Pete Resnick_web_740> You should always wear your brown dot to these sessions, Olaf.
[20:32:25] Martin Duke_web_148 joins the room
[20:32:30] <Brian Carpenter_web_296> @Jay: in joke. Olaf was once the ARSE
[20:32:34] <Olaf Kolkman_web_228> Indeed indeed...
[20:32:44] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_685 joins the room
[20:32:57] Christian Amsüss_web_480 joins the room
[20:33:01] Christian Elmerot_web_757 leaves the room
[20:33:04] <Pete Resnick_web_740> @Brian: To me, Olaf will always be the ARSE. ;-)
[20:33:21] <Jay Daley_web_213> @Brian - I know, it was multi-layered joke, never to be repeated it seems
[20:33:34] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_685 leaves the room
[20:33:55] <Martin Thomson_web_536> too many issues at once
[20:33:58] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_165 joins the room
[20:34:04] <Martin Thomson_web_536> do we have time for one-by-one?
[20:34:12] <Martin Thomson_web_536> if we do, then we should
[20:34:39] Sandy Ginoza_web_652 joins the room
[20:35:17] John Klensin_web_804 joins the room
[20:35:38] David Schinazi_web_788 joins the room
[20:35:44] <Martin Thomson_web_536> my understanding is that we resolved this one
[20:35:53] Pete Resnick_web_740 leaves the room
[20:35:58] Pete Resnick_web_127 joins the room
[20:36:07] <stpeter> Yes, that's my recollection.
[20:36:09] Bron Gondwana_web_727 joins the room
[20:36:15] John C Klensin joins the room
[20:36:32] <stpeter> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/61
[20:38:16] Michelle Cotton_web_919 leaves the room
[20:38:19] Alessandro Amirante_web_827 leaves the room
[20:38:24] Michael StJohns_web_197 joins the room
[20:38:37] Meetecho Robot_web_780 joins the room
[20:39:27] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> there needs to be a buck-stopper for this activity - the group as a whole won't be a good channel to the RPC
[20:41:23] Alice Russo_web_506 joins the room
[20:41:26] Magnus Westerlund_web_377 joins the room
[20:41:57] Christian Amsüss_web_480 leaves the room
[20:42:24] Jonathan Lennox_web_420 leaves the room
[20:42:49] Alissa Cooper_web_655 joins the room
[20:42:54] Alissa Cooper_web_655 leaves the room
[20:43:19] Randy Bush_web_280 leaves the room
[20:45:25] John Preuß Mattsson_web_882 joins the room
[20:45:52] <Michael StJohns_web_197> there are three cycles - RFC which describes the RPC role and how often that can be updated; the contract between the LLC and the RPC and how often that is renegotiated, and the task orders issued by the LLC to the RPC and how often that happens and the scope changes possible in the task orders relative to the contract.
[20:46:16] Martin Duke_web_148 leaves the room
[20:46:20] Martin Duke_web_774 joins the room
[20:47:24] Martin Duke_web_774 leaves the room
[20:47:28] Martin Duke_web_544 joins the room
[20:47:48] <Michael StJohns_web_197> the question is more about how the RSWG and the RSAB interact with the LLC to make their needs/wants known in that shortest of cycles.
[20:49:05] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> I guess we could be a bit more explanatory about the information flow in generally in the draft (maybe we diagrams and examples?)
[20:49:19] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> s/we/with/
[20:49:52] කෙසර රත්නායක_web_513 joins the room
[20:50:10] <Martin Thomson_web_536> talking past each other, clearly
[20:50:13] <Eliot Lear_web_930> mirja- i think i captured your suggestion in the github issue.  Any concerns?
[20:50:34] Pete Resnick_web_127 leaves the room
[20:50:38] Pete Resnick_web_218 joins the room
[20:50:53] <Pete Resnick_web_218> Can you give an example Lucy?
[20:50:59] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> this was more in general about all information flows between the new entities and not this isssue
[20:51:01] <Pete Resnick_web_218> I'm having trouble understanding the case.
[20:51:14] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> I guess you can open a new issue but it's really editorial
[20:51:46] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> (and this discussion might also be more general)
[20:52:12] <Brian Carpenter_web_296> No budget => the plan will die, is that a problem?
[20:52:42] <Alexey Melnikov_web_870> Or gets delayed for N years
[20:52:56] <John C Klensin> Lucy's concern mirrors part of the rant I posted some time ago.  Too many entities need to approve anything controversial with potential for paralysis as a result.    LLC may be obliged to do those things, but they also have to makde decisions about what is fiscally sound.  And, under the LLC agreement itself, it is not clear that assurances to the contrary mean anything.
[20:53:05] <Brian Carpenter_web_296> Sounds like Jay has found a money tree :slightly_smiling_face:
[20:53:27] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> not sure the work program can bind there llc
[20:54:14] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> yes
[20:54:21] <Jay Daley_web_213> Good suggestion
[20:55:21] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_165 leaves the room
[20:55:26] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> @eliot there is a lot of noise when you unmute
[20:55:46] <stpeter> yes, known issue with the noise
[20:55:48] <Olaf Kolkman_web_228> Lucy, can you adjust your mcrophone somewhat - you come across very faint
[20:55:54] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> ok
[20:56:13] <Martin Thomson_web_536> I would not call this "LLC Considerations", but talk about an implementation plan
[20:56:20] John Preuß Mattsson_web_882 leaves the room
[20:56:22] <Martin Thomson_web_536> Or feedback on implementation feasibility and costs.
[20:56:24] John Preuß Mattsson_web_254 joins the room
[20:56:31] Lars Eggert_web_509 joins the room
[20:56:33] <stpeter> +1
[20:56:37] <Michael StJohns_web_197> there is no RSWG cognizant work program - its an LLC/RPC thing.   Things get added to that after RFC completion, and LLC funding determination, and RPC agreement to execute.
[20:57:08] Toerless Eckert_web_440 joins the room
[20:57:14] <Jay Daley_web_213> +1 to Mike
[20:57:28] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @Martin - "The LLC agrees there funding available for this project, and the tasks can be created without contractual changes"
[20:57:32] <Michael StJohns_web_197> there is
[20:57:47] <Brian Carpenter_web_296> But we don't want the RSWG to waste a year on what turns out to be an unfunded mandate. Budget estimates need to be made up froont.
[20:58:01] <Michael StJohns_web_197> hence the LLC considerations section
[20:58:06] <Pete Resnick_web_218> +1 Brian. This seemed obvious to me, but no harm in adding text to clarify.
[20:58:12] Bill Cerveny_web_924 joins the room
[20:58:33] <Michael StJohns_web_197> we don't let standards RFCs go forward without the IANA agreeing they can manage the parameters necessary for example.
[20:58:45] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> what we discussed seems like a separate issue from the issue we currently look at
[20:59:42] <John C Klensin> @Mike: good, and IMO very useful, analogy... if we are willing to including the LLC in the specification process as we do with IANA
[20:59:58] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> expensive or re-tooled or both
[21:00:00] Brian Carpenter_web_296 leaves the room
[21:00:08] Brian Carpenter_web_811 joins the room
[21:00:32] <Jay Daley_web_213> A good example would be if the RSWG was close to agreeing that RFCs should be translated into the other four UN languages
[21:00:38] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> yes... just saying...
[21:00:46] <Martin Thomson_web_536> MSJ: this is more important, arguably.  At least IANA costs are relatively trivial.
[21:00:58] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> yay!
[21:01:07] <Michael StJohns_web_197> This isn't a standards specification process AIUI, it is a process creation process...
[21:01:23] John Preuß Mattsson_web_254 leaves the room
[21:01:38] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> isn't this basically the same issue?
[21:01:38] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @martin - agreed.
[21:02:23] <stpeter> yes, this is part and parcel of the same issue
[21:02:33] <Martin Thomson_web_536> I agree with Jay here.  This is important enough to document here.
[21:04:04] Michael Jenkins_web_888 joins the room
[21:04:16] <Michael StJohns_web_197> *sigh* New question - here just because I don't want to forget:  Does either of the RSAB/RSWG have any input in the priority of the processing effort (within the RPC) of specific documents?  If there are disagreement between the stream managers as to such priority, who resolves the disagreements?
[21:04:55] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Mike, I *think* that's a new issue.
[21:05:22] <Martin Thomson_web_536> John, I get the vision problem issue.  Zoom in.
[21:05:26] <Peter Saint-Andre_web_550> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/62
[21:05:28] Pete Resnick_web_218 leaves the room
[21:05:32] Pete Resnick_web_840 joins the room
[21:05:35] <Brian Carpenter_web_811> @Mike StJ, isn't this an RSAB issue if friendly negotiation fails?
[21:05:59] <Martin Thomson_web_536> MSJ: I think that the answer is "no" regarding specific documents: this is a strategic body.
[21:06:23] <Jay Daley_web_213> @MIke in my text I've made that optional because the feedback was that the RSAB should not have a defined role here - "It is likely that the RPC will require advice during the drafting of its work program, which it should seek from at least the RSAB and if required, the chairs of the RSWG."
[21:06:24] Martin Duke_web_544 leaves the room
[21:06:25] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> I think it is okay to say in the draft that there should be report and transparency about plans but using the term "work program" seems to raise unclear expectation for me. If we want to talk about a work plan we would need to explain it more which I don't recommend for this RFC
[21:06:31] <Martin Thomson_web_536> That specific documents might raise strategic questions is ok.
[21:06:36] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @eliot - sorry about that.  @Brian - not specified as of yet.  Might be an RSAB issue, but if the RSAB can't come to an agreement, does the RSAE choose?
[21:06:42] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> s/report/reporting/
[21:07:29] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @jay - thanks
[21:08:54] Magnus Westerlund_web_377 leaves the room
[21:09:47] Bill Cerveny_web_924 leaves the room
[21:09:58] <stpeter> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/56
[21:10:01] <Brian Carpenter_web_811> @Mike - I think we have to say that the RSAE mediates.
[21:11:41] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @brian - WFM
[21:11:46] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> looks good
[21:12:03] <Martin Thomson_web_536> I agree that we resolved this as stated.
[21:12:11] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> wfm
[21:12:12] <Michael StJohns_web_197> Do we pay the RPC enough for them to take the hit if someone doesn't like what they choose?
[21:12:28] <stpeter> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/57
[21:14:07] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> I guess the RSAB should take the hit and bring that feedback to the RFC for an update...?
[21:14:21] <Michael StJohns_web_197> RFC?
[21:14:29] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> sorry RPC
[21:14:32] <Michael StJohns_web_197> K
[21:14:52] <Michael StJohns_web_197> That's different that what was written..
[21:15:08] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> was a question from my side
[21:15:18] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> but that would make sense to me
[21:15:49] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> I think that's right
[21:16:23] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> the IAD?
[21:18:40] <Alexey Melnikov_web_870> I think Mirja is saying that community members can waste RPCs time :-)
[21:18:45] <Pete Resnick_web_840> The question is when someone objects to a particular item, who manages (or is able to shut down) that discussion?
[21:19:33] <Pete Resnick_web_840> Anybody can give feedback on any workplan item.
[21:19:40] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @pete - yup - From my experience, the various IETF participants hate being told that they don't get a say even in the most trivial things...
[21:20:09] <Brian Carpenter_web_811> "Bikeshedding considered harmful"
[21:20:26] Pete Resnick_web_840 leaves the room
[21:20:30] Pete Resnick_web_744 joins the room
[21:20:37] <Michael StJohns_web_197> one persons bikeshedding is another persons architectural decision.. *sigh*
[21:20:41] <Jay Daley_web_213> +1 to setting expectations
[21:20:52] <Michael StJohns_web_197> @jay - yes
[21:21:38] <Pete Resnick_web_744> Getting feedback != *Requiring* feedback.
[21:22:22] <Michael StJohns_web_197> feedback can be directed to the RSWG for future impacts on RSWG sponsored (originated?) items that might later appear
[21:23:28] <Martin Thomson_web_536> The rule should be that the RPC decides how to incorporate feedback.
[21:25:16] <Martin Thomson_web_536> Jay has it.
[21:25:24] <Martin Thomson_web_536> LLC escalation is fine.
[21:26:38] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> Yes, I will wait for a text proposal!
[21:26:53] <Martin Thomson_web_536> Thanks Brian, that sounds good.
[21:27:51] <Martin Thomson_web_536> +1 Peter
[21:28:15] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> Please leave some room in the text to adjust that process if we figure out it doesn't work as expected
[21:28:25] <Lucy Lynch_web_841> I think there are three corners to this issue: RPC autonomy, IAD/LLC contracting and management, and Community Consensus - where our input fits in the cycle is the current mystery I think
[21:28:28] <stpeter> Mirja Kühlewind_web_926: noted :-)
[21:28:31] <Martin Thomson_web_536> I might need to be spelled as note taker.
[21:28:35] <Martin Thomson_web_536> This is tiring.
[21:28:43] Lisa Winkler_web_741 leaves the room
[21:28:44] Mark McFadden_web_559 leaves the room
[21:28:48] Jay Daley_web_213 leaves the room
[21:28:48] කෙසර රත්නායක_web_513 leaves the room
[21:28:51] Lars Eggert_web_509 leaves the room
[21:28:51] Brian Carpenter_web_811 leaves the room
[21:28:57] <stpeter> Martin Thomson_web_536: enjoy some cookies and coffee during the break :-)
[21:29:08] Alice Russo_web_506 leaves the room
[21:29:09] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_926> we have a 30 minutes break, right?
[21:29:10] Alexey Melnikov_web_870 leaves the room
[21:29:14] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Thanks, Martin.
[21:29:15] Robert Sparks_web_424 leaves the room
[21:29:17] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Yes, we have 30 mins
[21:29:20] Cindy Morgan_web_290 leaves the room
[21:29:30] Mirja Kühlewind_web_926 leaves the room
[21:29:53] Sandy Ginoza_web_652 leaves the room
[21:32:28] Alessandro Amirante_web_890 joins the room
[21:33:14] Lucas Pardue_web_607 leaves the room
[21:33:19] Lucas Pardue_web_476 joins the room
[21:33:20] Pete Resnick_web_744 leaves the room
[21:33:27] Pete Resnick_web_148 joins the room
[21:33:56] David Schinazi_web_788 leaves the room
[21:34:10] Eric Kinnear_web_304 leaves the room
[21:34:45] Michael StJohns_web_197 leaves the room
[21:35:28] Lucas Pardue_web_476 leaves the room
[21:35:36] Pete Resnick_web_148 leaves the room
[21:35:59] Brian Rosen_web_220 leaves the room
[21:36:24] Michael Breuer_web_542 leaves the room
[21:36:29] Martin Thomson_web_536 leaves the room
[21:36:32] Michael Jenkins_web_888 leaves the room
[21:36:44] Pete Resnick_web_295 joins the room
[21:37:09] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Will this room really close?  I guess we have to change rooms
[21:37:26] <Alessandro Amirante_web_890> Yes
[21:37:28] Wes Hardaker_web_591 leaves the room
[21:37:31] <Eliot Lear_web_930> ok
[21:37:36] <Eliot Lear_web_930> see you all in the next room
[21:37:40] <Alessandro Amirante_web_890> This room will close shortly. Please move to:
https://meetings.conf.meetecho.com/ietf111/?group=rfcefdp&item=2
[21:37:53] Bron Gondwana_web_727 leaves the room
[21:37:58] Pete Resnick_web_295 leaves the room
[21:37:59] Toerless Eckert_web_440 leaves the room
[21:38:04] John Klensin_web_804 leaves the room
[21:38:13] <Eliot Lear_web_930> Thank you Alessandro
[21:38:26] <Alessandro Amirante_web_890> You're welcome!
[21:38:30] Eliot Lear_web_930 leaves the room
[21:39:42] Kenneth Murchison_web_930 leaves the room
[21:44:54] Lucy Lynch_web_841 leaves the room
[21:45:03] John Klensin_web_114 joins the room
[21:45:03] Paolo Saviano_web_703 joins the room
[21:45:03] Eric Kinnear_web_533 joins the room
[21:45:03] Michael Jenkins_web_951 joins the room
[21:45:03] Eliot Lear_web_288 joins the room
[21:45:03] Pete Resnick_web_818 joins the room
[21:45:53] Tobia Castaldi_web_153 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Paolo Saviano_web_221 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Joel Halpern_web_329 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Olaf Kolkman_web_228 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Adrian Farrel_web_628 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Peter Saint-Andre_web_550 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Meetecho Robot_web_780 leaves the room
[21:45:53] Alessandro Amirante_web_890 leaves the room
[21:46:25] Meetecho Robot_web_532 joins the room
[21:47:13] Brian Rosen_web_652 joins the room
[21:47:37] Adrian Farrel_web_498 joins the room
[21:47:57] Meetecho Robot_web_532 leaves the room
[21:49:28] <Pete Resnick_web_818> Brian well-noted the note-well.
[21:49:33] Peter Saint-Andre_web_528 joins the room
[21:49:52] Lucy Lynch_web_618 joins the room
[21:49:55] <Pete Resnick_web_818> 5x5 on the sound check.
[21:50:06] Jared Mauch_web_965 joins the room
[21:50:21] Jiankang Yao_web_469 joins the room
[21:50:25] <Pete Resnick_web_818> I'm on a lousy connection at the moment. Keeps popping in and out.
[21:50:32] Pete Resnick_web_818 leaves the room
[21:50:37] Pete Resnick_web_435 joins the room
[21:50:53] Martin Thomson_web_979 joins the room
[21:51:07] Michael StJohns_web_906 joins the room
[21:52:19] Joel Halpern_web_243 joins the room
[21:53:49] Karen O'Donoghue_web_975 joins the room
[21:54:24] <Martin Thomson_web_979> contracting (without the opposite) is fine
[21:54:32] <Martin Thomson_web_979> or employing
[21:54:33] <Pete Resnick_web_435> +1 martin
[21:54:46] <Martin Thomson_web_979> the opposite is what gets emotionally charged
[21:54:57] <Pete Resnick_web_435> Is someone cheeping?
[21:55:01] <John C Klensin> "contracting" in the sense of "putting the squeeze on" might be an entirely appropriate match for "de-contracting".
[21:55:02] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> someone has a pet rat?
[21:55:17] Olaf Kolkman_web_980 joins the room
[21:55:32] Barry Leiba_web_149 joins the room
[21:55:36] Jared Mauch_web_965 leaves the room
[21:55:40] <Eliot Lear_web_288> selection and oversight
[21:55:40] Jared Mauch_web_360 joins the room
[21:55:43] Robert Sparks_web_235 joins the room
[21:55:50] Jared Mauch_web_360 leaves the room
[21:55:54] Jared Mauch_web_730 joins the room
[21:56:13] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I'm having similar problems to Peter, but because this starts so early, I can't.
[21:56:27] <Martin Thomson_web_979> It works on my phone.  Not great, but it works.
[21:57:11] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I should qualify: everything works great, but the screen size is a real problem for the UI.
[21:57:14] Michael Breuer_web_701 joins the room
[21:57:20] Peter Koch_web_268 joins the room
[21:57:33] <Brian Rosen_web_652> yes, I imagine it is
[21:57:38] Éric Vyncke_web_526 joins the room
[21:57:50] Ira McDonald_web_357 joins the room
[21:58:07] Jay Daley_web_764 joins the room
[21:58:14] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Also, I really wanted to use my phone for audio the other day, but it forcibly logs you out when I tried that.
[21:58:17] David Schinazi_web_816 joins the room
[21:58:48] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Can't be logged in to the same session twice, sadly.
[21:59:12] Lars Eggert_web_307 joins the room
[21:59:13] Cullen Jennings_web_119 joins the room
[21:59:43] Peter Yee_web_230 joins the room
[21:59:53] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_747 joins the room
[22:00:06] francesca joins the room
[22:00:12] <Martin Thomson_web_979> it's great! it's not 3am
[22:00:13] කෙසර රත්නායක_web_866 joins the room
[22:00:49] Wes Hardaker_web_560 joins the room
[22:01:09] Mirja Kühlewind_web_890 joins the room
[22:01:16] Rich Salz_web_363 joins the room
[22:01:54] Stephen McQuistin_web_555 joins the room
[22:01:58] Stephen McQuistin_web_555 is now known as Stephen McQuistin_web_294
[22:01:59] <Martin Thomson_web_979> tiny text warning
[22:02:04] Stephen McQuistin_web_294 leaves the room
[22:02:06] Greg Wood_web_690 joins the room
[22:02:08] Stephen McQuistin_web_865 joins the room
[22:02:10] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Eliot, can you zoom (lots)?
[22:02:21] Alice Russo_web_598 joins the room
[22:03:04] Valery Smyslov_web_852 joins the room
[22:03:14] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Joel's proposal works for me.
[22:03:18] Sandy Ginoza_web_482 joins the room
[22:03:20] Lisa Winkler_web_753 joins the room
[22:03:47] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I also agree with Joel that attempting to list people who need to be in the loop is fraught.
[22:03:50] Shumon Huque_web_124 joins the room
[22:04:12] Cindy Morgan_web_788 joins the room
[22:04:19] <Martin Thomson_web_979> (As for previous discussions, anything we right might be construed as being sufficient, as opposed to merely necessary.)
[22:04:23] Ira McDonald_web_357 leaves the room
[22:04:41] Bron Gondwana_web_218 joins the room
[22:04:42] Marco Davids_web_982 joins the room
[22:05:26] <Martin Thomson_web_979> +1 Jay.
[22:05:29] Mark Nottingham_web_982 joins the room
[22:05:40] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I like the search committee mention also.
[22:05:49] Tommy Pauly_web_763 joins the room
[22:05:49] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_467 joins the room
[22:05:52] <Eliot Lear_web_288> What is the agreement?
[22:05:53] Glenn Deen_web_656 joins the room
[22:05:57] <Eliot Lear_web_288> I missed the change
[22:06:21] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> just saying committee doesn't actually say that anybody from the community needs to be in that commiteee
[22:06:32] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> (whoever is defined as your community...)
[22:06:42] Leif Johansson_web_208 joins the room
[22:06:44] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Yes, there is no guarantee that the ED does the right thing, but I think we've already acknowledged that.
[22:06:59] <Martin Thomson_web_979> The proposal is that the LLC is responsible for contracting the RSEA.
[22:07:04] James Galvin_web_813 joins the room
[22:07:14] <Martin Thomson_web_979> And that the LLC is responsible for forming the search committee.
[22:07:34] <Lars Eggert_web_307> this would be the LLC *board*, right?
[22:07:54] <Martin Thomson_web_979> No, the LLC as an entity.
[22:08:17] <Lars Eggert_web_307> @MT say more?
[22:08:19] <Martin Thomson_web_979> The board is just responsible.  Operationally, this likely falls on the ED.
[22:08:35] <Lars Eggert_web_307> thanks
[22:08:44] <Martin Thomson_web_979> We've used "LLC" as a fill-in for that for most of this stuff already.
[22:08:49] <Pete Resnick_web_435> The board can always come back and tell the ED that the LLC has made a bad choice and instruct them to correct.
[22:09:01] <Pete Resnick_web_435> (As with everything else.)
[22:09:04] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Pete: right.
[22:09:14] <Lars Eggert_web_307> got it, thanks (and makes sense)
[22:09:15] <Michael StJohns_web_906> No!  The community gets to comment on the requirements, not on the actual candidates etc
[22:09:45] <Pete Resnick_web_435> @Mike: To what are you disagreeing?
[22:10:05] <Pete Resnick_web_435> or "with what" I guess.
[22:10:44] <Michael StJohns_web_906> Mirja's comment... sorry
[22:11:05] Kenneth Murchison_web_600 joins the room
[22:11:06] <Michael StJohns_web_906> The community involvement comes before the process of finding someone starts
[22:11:35] <Michael StJohns_web_906> There is no community involvement once the process starts.
[22:11:45] <Glenn Deen_web_656> why can't the LLC form the committee and put out a call for participants?
[22:12:07] <Glenn Deen_web_656> the llc then selects from the volunteers
[22:12:10] <Michael StJohns_web_906> That's what the language says right now...
[22:12:36] <Michael StJohns_web_906> actually, ignore that.
[22:14:24] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I would like to see a search committee involved explicitly.  The LLC will form a search committee, including members from the community, that will be responsible for making a recommendation to the LLC for the RSEA.  The committee will take into account the role definition and any other information that the community deems necessary or helpful in making its recommendation.  The LLC is responsible for contracting or employment of the RSEA.
[22:14:36] <Pete Resnick_web_435> Openness should not be a requirement for the committee. Just like the NomCom.
[22:14:53] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Yeah, this will need confidentiality constraints.
[22:15:28] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> I was talking about openness about how the committee is formed
[22:15:42] <Jared Mauch_web_730> (thank you everyone that is also helping in the codimd and fixing my typos)
[22:16:05] <Pete Resnick_web_435> Community members might be members of the committee, but that shouldn't be a requirement.
[22:16:14] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> I have a possible suggestion...
[22:17:29] Marco Davids_web_982 leaves the room
[22:17:33] Shumon Huque_web_124 leaves the room
[22:17:54] <Michael StJohns_web_906> I can live with that
[22:17:54] <Jay Daley_web_764> good suggestion
[22:18:09] Bron Gondwana_web_218 leaves the room
[22:18:30] <Michael StJohns_web_906> Selection advisory committee?
[22:18:42] <Jay Daley_web_764> Martin's text works for me
[22:18:45] <Pete Resnick_web_435> I'm comfortable with what Martin just said.
[22:18:50] <Michael StJohns_web_906> Or candidate evaulation committee
[22:19:33] <Martin Thomson_web_979> MSJ: that name is also OK
[22:20:05] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> no
[22:20:30] <Martin Thomson_web_979> "search committee" is a term of art
[22:20:35] <stpeter> yes
[22:20:50] Pete Resnick_web_435 leaves the room
[22:20:56] Pete Resnick_web_896 joins the room
[22:21:01] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I put the text in this chat above, but the proposal we are talking about here replaces "search" with "selection".
[22:21:11] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> the text is fine for (but I would prefer less details)
[22:21:33] Kirsten Machi_web_438 joins the room
[22:21:39] Thomas Fossati_web_952 joins the room
[22:22:06] <stpeter> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/47
[22:22:45] <Martin Thomson_web_979> This is an important thing to try to answer.  I don't know what we might say.
[22:23:55] <Martin Thomson_web_979> +1 to "whole process"
[22:24:08] Pete Resnick_web_896 leaves the room
[22:24:09] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> evaluation success would be nice but I don't think that's something we have specified for any other processes we have...?
[22:24:13] Pete Resnick_web_789 joins the room
[22:24:16] Jane Coffin_web_232 joins the room
[22:24:38] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> evaluation success seems like a separate much bigger topics for me
[22:25:19] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I might be able to help
[22:26:41] <Michael Jenkins_web_951> Success is when everyone is equally unhappy
[22:28:03] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> +1 to martin
[22:28:08] <Michael StJohns_web_906> @Jenkins... nope, that's compromise
[22:29:09] <Michael StJohns_web_906> @mirja... actually, we have all sorts of success evals related to the specifications - e.g. does it get implemented and does it make life better for the users of the internet...
[22:29:16] <Martin Thomson_web_979> My suggestion concretely: make this the responsibility of the RSWG.
[22:29:20] <Michael StJohns_web_906> +1 peter
[22:30:00] <Michael StJohns_web_906> @martin - issue there might be that the RSWG has no interest on circumscribing themselves by a mission statement...
[22:30:15] <Martin Thomson_web_979> That is, explicitly say that the RSWG is responsible for developing statements of principles or mission for the series.
[22:30:18] <Michael StJohns_web_906> maybe require that before any other document gets approved?
[22:30:26] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> we could require it from the RSWG...
[22:30:28] <stpeter> Lucy Lynch_web_618: sorry about that, I thought I was in queue ahead of you, apologies if I wasn't
[22:30:41] <stpeter> and agreed on chartering
[22:30:49] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> np
[22:31:10] <Martin Thomson_web_979> MSJ: we may never agree on some points, but if we insist on reaching agreement, this entire process stalls on those philosophical points
[22:31:54] <Martin Thomson_web_979> let's say that you propose that immutability of outputs is a necessary and essential characteristic and that a mission statement needs to codify that.  I would not agree to that.
[22:32:48] <Martin Thomson_web_979> (note that immutability as a consequence of meeting archival requirements might be necessary at some level)
[22:33:51] Colin Perkins_web_237 joins the room
[22:34:14] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> I guess there are some principles like the process must support the technical work of the IETF ("keep RFC flowing") but I think that should be taken into a separate document
[22:34:29] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Mirja: that is exactly my proposal
[22:35:02] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> yes I already agreed to you above. Just wanted to add that I think there are some principles we would be able to agree to
[22:35:24] Pete Resnick_web_789 leaves the room
[22:35:27] <Martin Thomson_web_979> anonymous feedback is generally less actionable than confidential feedback
[22:36:08] <Martin Thomson_web_979> either way, there will be information that needs to remain confidential as it relates to employment issues
[22:36:29] Pete Resnick_web_786 joins the room
[22:36:42] <Martin Thomson_web_979> forcing them to be public will result in suppression of feedback, unfortunately
[22:36:42] <Jay Daley_web_764> I think public comment is appropriate for organisations and elected roles, not contracted individuals
[22:36:50] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Jay: agree
[22:36:55] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> +1
[22:36:57] Eric Rescorla_web_387 joins the room
[22:36:57] <John C Klensin> Not so ragged an edge, but this gets back to my earlier comment.  If we completely trust Jay's successor (I'm personally fine with Jay) to decide what should be public and what shouldn't, then things are probably ok.
[22:37:02] Jon Peterson_web_883 joins the room
[22:37:18] Alessandro Amirante_web_494 joins the room
[22:37:38] Bron Gondwana_web_850 joins the room
[22:38:25] <Martin Thomson_web_979> those who receive confidential feedback often act as a trusted intermediary for information that can be important and would not otherwise be conveyed
[22:38:25] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[22:39:04] Jiankang Yao_web_469 leaves the room
[22:39:10] Jiankang Yao_web_168 joins the room
[22:39:10] Jonathan Lennox_web_245 joins the room
[22:39:15] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> we have a confidential feedback process in many occasions. I don't see the problem this that.
[22:39:42] <John C Klensin> @Martin: exactly.  And also part of the issue..as long as those doing the replaying cna be trusted to do so accurately.
[22:40:06] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Yeah, relying on trust is the best we currently have.  It's not great when trust breaks down.
[22:40:09] Cullen Jennings_web_119 leaves the room
[22:40:33] <Michael StJohns_web_906> How about all of the comments are kept confidential, all of the comments without attribution are provided to the RSEA, and with attribution only to the formal members of the RSAB?
[22:41:11] <Martin Thomson_web_979> MSJ: terms under which feedback is used needs to be governed by the entity that provides that feedback
[22:41:58] <stpeter> I'll note that the RSEA is on the RSAB...
[22:41:59] <Michael StJohns_web_906> @Martin then the feedback that cannot be provided to the RSEA can not be rebutted...
[22:42:09] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> goes the community feedback to the RSAB or the LLC?
[22:42:27] <Michael StJohns_web_906> @martin and that is unfair
[22:42:34] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I have seen some of these processes used in the past and without that confidentiality, power dynamics can be exploited.  Of course, it also has the effect of giving providers of feedback distorted power over the subject of that feedback.  We very much rely on the intermediary.
[22:43:03] Peter Koch_web_268 leaves the room
[22:43:42] <Martin Thomson_web_979> MSJ: yes, but that loss of fairness is the price you pay for not operating entirely in the dark, because confidentiality is what allows the information to be available
[22:44:11] Éric Vyncke_web_526 leaves the room
[22:44:43] <Michael StJohns_web_906> And if you're the RSEA then you're wondering why you haven't been renewed when everyone is publicly indicated great satisfaction...
[22:44:45] <Martin Thomson_web_979> might as well require the ombudsteam to share the content of complaints they get
[22:45:03] <Michael StJohns_web_906> apples and oranges Martin and you know it
[22:45:15] <Martin Thomson_web_979> no, it really isn't
[22:45:59] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> if you didn't get renewed, you don't have the job anymore; why does the feedback matter?
[22:46:25] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Mirja: I think that Mike is trying to avoid any such outcome
[22:46:48] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> So this process will put the RESA on the defensive and may lead to campaigning for feedback absent on opportunity for review and correction.
[22:46:56] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> an
[22:47:00] <Lucy Lynch_web_618> not on
[22:47:58] <Martin Thomson_web_979> SOW written by the LLC, with consultation with the community
[22:47:59] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> if the LLC want to hire another person, we need to have some trust that they do the right thing as long as the role is filled adequately
[22:48:14] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> +1 to martin
[22:48:23] Jiankang Yao_web_168 leaves the room
[22:48:30] Jiankang Yao_web_125 joins the room
[22:49:40] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> update as often as needed!
[22:50:16] <Martin Thomson_web_979> there is also an editor's draft up on github if you want to track current status
[22:50:38] <Martin Thomson_web_979> I need to fix the link though...
[22:50:39] Pete Resnick_web_786 leaves the room
[22:50:44] Pete Resnick_web_354 joins the room
[22:50:46] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> yes, GitHub is fine for me. I don't care how often the draft is actually submitted
[22:51:10] Lisa Winkler_web_753 leaves the room
[22:51:29] Lisa Winkler_web_311 joins the room
[22:52:30] Karen O'Donoghue_web_975 leaves the room
[22:53:10] <Martin Thomson_web_979> also, our chairs need to turn on GitHub Pages
[22:53:24] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> yes that would be nice
[22:53:39] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> wait I guess I can do that as well
[22:53:51] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Oh, that would be good.  Thanks Mirja.
[22:54:11] <Joel Halpern_web_243> What is Github Pages?
[22:54:21] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> done
[22:54:27] <Martin Thomson_web_979> Joel: a way to get your git stuff as a web page
[22:54:55] <Martin Thomson_web_979> this repo has a way of taking draft source and automatically generating html (and text) so that you can read the document
[22:54:56] <Mark Nottingham_web_982> Getting lots of mic noise, could those not speaking please mute?
[22:55:12] <ekr@jabber.org> that might have been me
[22:55:18] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> Editor's copy: https://intarchboard.github.io/program-rfced-future/draft-iab-rfcefdp-rfced-model.html
[22:55:22] <Mark Nottingham_web_982> Actually I think it's st peter's keyboard
[22:55:26] <Michael StJohns_web_906> I'm ok with that for now
[22:55:31] <stpeter> I am muted.
[22:55:47] <Jonathan Lennox_web_245> Yeah, if the IESG is replacing their delegate every second day, that sounds like a reason to tell the NomCom that those IESG members shouldn't be re-appointed.
[22:55:48] <stpeter> Well, hardware muted locally. I think it was Brian or Eliot.
[22:55:53] stpeter points fingers :-)
[22:56:55] Olaf Kolkman_web_980 leaves the room
[22:57:12] <stpeter> Summer in the northern hemisphere, of course. ;-)
[22:57:23] <Martin Thomson_web_979> thanks for a productive meeting all
[22:57:49] <Pete Resnick_web_354> +1 martin and Eliot, and thanks to the chairs too for moving this along well.
[22:57:50] <Mirja Kühlewind_web_890> yes. thanks!
[22:58:06] <Jonathan Lennox_web_245> Has anyone ever tried pronouncing this wg's acronym?
[22:58:30] Jane Coffin_web_232 leaves the room
[22:58:32] Barry Leiba_web_149 leaves the room
[22:58:33] Rich Salz_web_363 leaves the room
[22:58:39] Jon Peterson_web_883 leaves the room
[22:58:52] Peter Saint-Andre_web_528 leaves the room
[22:58:53] Pete Resnick_web_354 leaves the room
[22:58:53] Jay Daley_web_764 leaves the room
[22:58:53] Brian Rosen_web_652 leaves the room
[22:58:54] Robert Sparks_web_235 leaves the room
[22:58:54] Lisa Winkler_web_311 leaves the room
[22:58:54] Kirsten Machi_web_438 leaves the room
[22:58:56] Michael StJohns_web_906 leaves the room
[22:58:57] Greg Wood_web_690 leaves the room
[22:58:57] Tommy Pauly_web_763 leaves the room
[22:58:58] Eric Rescorla_web_387 leaves the room
[22:59:01] කෙසර රත්නායක_web_866 leaves the room
[22:59:02] Colin Perkins_web_237 leaves the room
[22:59:02] Glenn Deen_web_656 leaves the room
[22:59:05] John Klensin_web_114 leaves the room
[22:59:06] Joel Halpern_web_243 leaves the room
[22:59:14] David Schinazi_web_816 leaves the room
[22:59:14] Wes Hardaker_web_560 leaves the room
[22:59:16] Mirja Kühlewind_web_890 leaves the room
[22:59:17] Thomas Fossati_web_952 leaves the room
[22:59:17] Cindy Morgan_web_788 leaves the room
[22:59:22] Jonathan Lennox_web_245 leaves the room
[22:59:22] Leif Johansson_web_208 leaves the room
[22:59:24] Lucy Lynch_web_618 leaves the room
[22:59:24] Jared Mauch_web_730 leaves the room
[22:59:25] Eliot Lear_web_288 leaves the room
[22:59:26] Bron Gondwana_web_850 leaves the room
[22:59:27] Sandy Ginoza_web_482 leaves the room
[22:59:27] Michael Jenkins_web_951 leaves the room
[22:59:30] Eric Kinnear_web_533 leaves the room
[22:59:35] James Galvin_web_813 leaves the room
[22:59:43] Peter Yee_web_230 leaves the room
[22:59:44] James Galvin_web_125 joins the room
[22:59:59] James Galvin_web_125 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Paolo Saviano_web_703 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Adrian Farrel_web_498 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Martin Thomson_web_979 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Michael Breuer_web_701 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Lars Eggert_web_307 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Phillip Hallam-Baker_web_747 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Stephen McQuistin_web_865 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Alice Russo_web_598 leaves the room
[23:00:03] Valery Smyslov_web_852 leaves the room
[23:00:04] Mark Nottingham_web_982 leaves the room
[23:00:04] Daphanie Nisbeth_web_467 leaves the room
[23:00:04] Kenneth Murchison_web_600 leaves the room
[23:00:04] Alessandro Amirante_web_494 leaves the room
[23:00:04] Jiankang Yao_web_125 leaves the room
[23:00:30] stpeter leaves the room
[23:01:11] Yoshiro Yoneya leaves the room
[23:09:33] Meetecho leaves the room
[23:15:50] meetecho-alexamirante leaves the room
[23:28:37] John C Klensin leaves the room
Powered by ejabberd - robust, scalable and extensible XMPP server Powered by Erlang Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional Valid CSS!