[10:20:32] alex-meetecho joins the room
[10:39:55] teirdes joins the room
[10:48:04] Meetecho joins the room
[10:50:00] Alessandro Amirante joins the room
[10:50:00] Cathy Aronson joins the room
[10:50:00] Michael Richardson joins the room
[10:50:22] Suresh Krishnan joins the room
[10:50:39] Simon Romano joins the room
[10:50:58] Rick Alfvin joins the room
[10:50:59] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[10:51:47] Alexandre Petrescu joins the room
[10:51:55] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[10:52:06] Ted Hardie joins the room
[10:52:11] Amelia Andersdotter joins the room
[10:52:43] Joel Halpern joins the room
[10:53:09] mcr joins the room
[10:54:23] Alexandre Petrescu leaves the room
[10:54:42] Alexandre Petrescu joins the room
[10:54:57] Stewart Bryant joins the room
[10:55:00] Cullen Jennings joins the room
[10:55:07] Jay Daley joins the room
[10:55:11] Mike Hoye joins the room
[10:55:22] Cullen Jennings_365 joins the room
[10:55:37] Einar Bohlin joins the room
[10:55:41] Samuel Weiler joins the room
[10:56:10] Michael Breuer joins the room
[10:56:38] <Cullen Jennings> ietf 108 agenda
[10:56:53] Dan York joins the room
[10:57:05] Valery Smyslov joins the room
[10:57:07] Karen Moreland joins the room
[10:57:12] Rick Alfvin leaves the room
[10:57:17] Klensin joins the room
[10:57:19] Rick Alfvin joins the room
[10:57:26] Suresh Krishnan leaves the room
[10:57:35] Robert Sparks joins the room
[10:57:41] Kazunori Fujiwara joins the room
[10:57:43] <Joel Halpern> Audible.
[10:57:46] Wes Hardaker joins the room
[10:57:51] <Mike Hoye> I can hear you.
[10:57:55] Henrik Levkowetz joins the room
[10:58:02] Stewart Bryant leaves the room
[10:58:03] Mike Boyle joins the room
[10:58:08] Suresh Krishnan joins the room
[10:58:17] Alexa Morris joins the room
[10:58:33] John Klensin joins the room
[10:58:34] Alissa Cooper joins the room
[10:58:42] Stewart Bryant joins the room
[10:58:50] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[10:59:05] Matthew Miller joins the room
[10:59:06] Kirsty P joins the room
[10:59:07] Jonathan Hoyland joins the room
[10:59:08] Bron Gondwana joins the room
[10:59:19] Alexa Morris_938 joins the room
[10:59:20] Adrian Farrel joins the room
[10:59:32] Richard Barnes joins the room
[10:59:39] brong joins the room
[10:59:51] Charles Eckel joins the room
[10:59:58] Alvaro Retana joins the room
[11:00:02] Bill Fenner joins the room
[11:00:05] andrew_campling joins the room
[11:00:17] avezza joins the room
[11:00:18] andrew_campling leaves the room
[11:00:23] Andrew Malis joins the room
[11:00:27] Jerome Vacek joins the room
[11:00:29] Peter Yee joins the room
[11:00:39] andrew_campling joins the room
[11:00:43] <alex-meetecho> yes
[11:00:50] kmoreland@amsl.com joins the room
[11:00:50] <Mike Hoye> Clear audio here.
[11:00:51] Yoshifumi Atarashi joins the room
[11:00:51] Peter Koch joins the room
[11:00:58] Peter Koch leaves the room
[11:01:02] Andrew Campling joins the room
[11:01:05] <Richard Barnes> super annoying that i have to re-grant mic permission every time i unmute
[11:01:17] Avri Doria joins the room
[11:01:25] Greg Wood joins the room
[11:01:29] Chris Box joins the room
[11:01:42] Peter Koch joins the room
[11:01:43] Sam Weiler joins the room
[11:01:51] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[11:01:51] <alex-meetecho> Richard Barnes: there's a "don't ask me anymore" flag
[11:01:54] Chris Box leaves the room
[11:01:56] <Andrew Campling> Is that on an Apple device?
[11:01:58] Greg Wood (IETF LLC) joins the room
[11:01:58] <alex-meetecho> assuming you're using firefox
[11:02:09] Harald Alvestrand joins the room
[11:02:32] <Dan York> Notes: https://codimd.ietf.org/notes-ietf-108-shmoo
[11:02:44] Shivan Sahib joins the room
[11:02:45] <Richard Barnes> alex: "user error" is not an excuse when this is not a problem for competitors
[11:02:45] Markus joins the room
[11:02:48] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:02:56] Peter Feil joins the room
[11:03:02] Takahiro Nemoto joins the room
[11:03:03] Timothy Carlin joins the room
[11:03:05] Mirja Kühlewind joins the room
[11:03:07] Carrick joins the room
[11:03:09] Andrew S joins the room
[11:03:11] Bill Fenner leaves the room
[11:03:16] Chris Box joins the room
[11:03:21] Ben Campbell joins the room
[11:03:22] Bill Fenner joins the room
[11:03:28] Erik Nygren joins the room
[11:03:29] <alex-meetecho> Richard Barnes: are you serious? I'm not excusing at all!
[11:03:33] <Mike Hoye> Some competitors default to unsafe choices, though...
[11:03:35] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:03:39] <brong> Richard Barnes: you have very rosy coloured classes about the issues people have using competitors
[11:03:41] <Meetecho> Who said user error? Firefox asks for permission again any time you do a getUserMedia: that's just how it works, unless you ask it to remember your decision
[11:03:41] RjS joins the room
[11:03:49] Carrick leaves the room
[11:03:49] Carrick joins the room
[11:03:54] <Richard Barnes> whatever you're doing is also causing a ~750ms cut in audio when activating
[11:03:55] Erik Nygren leaves the room
[11:04:02] Tim Chown joins the room
[11:04:02] Erik Nygren joins the room
[11:04:05] <Meetecho> The "competitors" maybe ask at the beginning and keep a MediaStream always active for when they need it. We prefer to release deices when we don't use them
[11:04:10] Andrew S leaves the room
[11:04:15] Erik Nygren leaves the room
[11:04:18] m&m joins the room
[11:04:19] <brong> Meetecho: that preference does create a worse experience
[11:04:20] Erik Nygren joins the room
[11:04:21] <Meetecho> Otherwise you'd always see the mic light on, for instance
[11:04:21] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:04:23] <Suresh Krishnan> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-shmoo-chair-slides-01
[11:04:24] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:04:24] <brong> as has been pointed out by many people
[11:04:26] <alex-meetecho> that's WebRTC and how it's implemented in Firefox. I guessed you knew somwthing about that but I'm guessed wrong. Welcome me to the club...
[11:04:28] Mike Bishop joins the room
[11:04:31] <Meetecho> brong: true, but that's what the browser does
[11:04:39] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:04:40] Peter Van Roste joins the room
[11:04:50] <Klensin> @Cullen +1
[11:04:56] <Jonathan Hoyland> @Richard @Brong I don't agree. It's a total pain when pages don't release your devices.
[11:04:59] <Suresh Krishnan> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-shmoo-meeting-planning-01
[11:05:03] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[11:05:06] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:05:08] <Jonathan Hoyland> Esp. if you're in two calls at the same time.
[11:05:09] Chris Box leaves the room
[11:05:12] <Dan York> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/materials/#shmoo
[11:05:22] <RjS> also: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/108/session/shmoo
[11:05:23] <brong> Jonathan Hoyland: it would be nice to be able to choose between mute (don't release devices) and disconnect audio
[11:05:25] Daniel Gillmor joins the room
[11:05:36] <mcr> I can take some minutes, but I'm also in two other meetings.
[11:05:49] <Alexandre Petrescu> I can do codimd
[11:05:50] <Meetecho> brong: ack, we added some notes on that as feedback during the week
[11:05:51] Kris Shrishak joins the room
[11:05:53] <brong> sure, I can
[11:05:57] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:06:01] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:06:01] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:06:01] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:06:03] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:06:12] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[11:06:19] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:06:20] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:06:24] Chris Box joins the room
[11:06:34] Toerless Eckert joins the room
[11:06:40] Wes Hardaker's clone joins the room
[11:06:48] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:06:57] Ben Campbell joins the room
[11:07:01] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:07:02] Richard Scheffenegger joins the room
[11:07:21] Bill Fenner leaves the room
[11:07:31] Ted Lemon joins the room
[11:07:38] Bill Fenner joins the room
[11:08:00] Mallory Knodel joins the room
[11:08:06] Daniel Gillmor leaves the room
[11:08:10] Kaname Nishizuka joins the room
[11:08:25] tale joins the room
[11:08:30] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:08:39] Robert Wilton joins the room
[11:08:43] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:09:15] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:09:59] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:10:17] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:10:18] Robert Wilton leaves the room
[11:10:31] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:10:39] Bill Fenner leaves the room
[11:10:44] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[11:10:49] Bill Fenner joins the room
[11:11:02] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:11:07] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:11:15] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:11:15] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:11:17] Andrew S joins the room
[11:11:41] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:11:45] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[11:12:06] <mcr> so many globes behind him.
[11:12:09] <mcr> one for each time zone?
[11:12:11] <Jason Livingood> LOL
[11:12:19] <Alexandre Petrescu> the globes are virtual background I suppose
[11:12:22] <Jonathan Hoyland> Everyone has a first time.
[11:12:33] Jordi Palet Martinez joins the room
[11:12:34] Rüdiger Volk joins the room
[11:12:37] <mcr> I don't think so.
[11:12:45] <Ben Campbell> Is the "curling" license plate a virtual background?
[11:12:51] <Carrick> Dan, you need more globes
[11:12:54] <Ben Campbell> Because that would be kind of specific...
[11:13:04] <Ted Hardie> @Ben No, he's a big curling fan.
[11:13:05] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[11:13:08] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:13:34] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:13:40] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:13:58] <Alexandre Petrescu> for info, I noticed CES January 2021 announced as an "all virtual expereicne"
[11:14:19] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[11:14:36] <brong> I'm more a wget kinda person
[11:14:39] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:14:39] Kireeti Kompella joins the room
[11:14:49] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:14:55] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[11:14:59] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:15:32] <Mike Hoye> I'm not aware of a single medium or large conference that has not gone all-virtual at this point.
[11:15:44] <brong> or just not happened at all
[11:15:54] <Mike Hoye> Tech conference, at least. Nobody wants to throw those dice.
[11:16:18] <Alexandre Petrescu> ISO TC204 is re-evaluating situation periodically (monthly) with participants.
[11:16:31] <andrew_campling> IETF 108 is the only one I'm tracking in the next quarter that is not virtual
[11:16:32] Cathy Aronson leaves the room
[11:16:44] <andrew_campling> *IETF 109!
[11:16:49] <teirdes> if you want to contribute to the discussion through the chat (or like have it mentioned off-chat) please indicate
[11:16:51] Jonathan Hoyland leaves the room
[11:16:57] Cathy Aronson joins the room
[11:17:10] <Alexandre Petrescu> teirdes - I do not understand?
[11:17:15] Jonathan Hoyland joins the room
[11:17:36] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:17:36] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:17:37] <teirdes> alexandre: if you don't want to speak through your own microphone but still have something you want to be spoken out loud. this is amelia btw.
[11:17:53] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:17:55] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:17:58] <Mallory Knodel> Are we meant to be responding to all of Dan's questions?
[11:18:15] <RjS> amilia; I think you mean "If you have a comment taken to the mic, prefix it with mic:"?
[11:18:25] <teirdes> @rjs sure
[11:18:27] <brong> Mallory Knodel: yes
[11:18:30] <teirdes> @mallory yes
[11:18:39] <Dan York> Mallory - my understanding is that responses are welcome
[11:18:47] <Mallory Knodel> Thanks
[11:18:54] <teirdes> or, i mean, it's a contribution driven discussion so answers can be given at the leisure of the community
[11:19:07] <teirdes> nothing in principle stops the community from delegating details to the executive
[11:19:59] Dhruv Dhody joins the room
[11:20:02] <Alexandre Petrescu> The timezone question... eagerly waiting...
[11:20:02] <tale> We can just expand China's TZ to the world.  Problem solved!
[11:20:12] <Mike Hoye> There are advantages and tradeoffs to be made now that we're not constrained by physicalism.
[11:20:25] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:20:41] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:21:00] <brong> Adrian Farrel: I only did one session in two meetings!  Yeah, it was hard
[11:21:09] <mcr> two meetings only? slacker. I'm doing three.
[11:21:28] <Joel Halpern> I was lucky to have no significant conflicts with this schedule.
[11:21:39] <RjS> conflicts weren't bad for me this time
[11:21:49] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[11:21:54] <Mike Hoye> (I mean, there's no reason to give up the "switching back and forth between hemispheres every six months" practice? In _this_ meeting we center-weight the schedule around one hemisphere's TZs, in the next one it's the others.
[11:21:58] <Mike Hoye> )
[11:22:04] <tale> My conflicts were about the same as in-person meeting.   I don't think I had any primary ones, but a few secondary.
[11:22:05] <Jonathan Hoyland> Yeah, scheduling MLS against GAIA and HRPC against TLS sucked.
[11:22:06] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think we should really try to find ways to take advance of the fact that we don't need to squeeze everything in one week due to travel
[11:22:09] <Shivan Sahib> privacypass conflicting with dprive was a bad one
[11:22:12] <mcr> I had seven conflicts.  A bit worse.
[11:22:20] <Chris Box> I had 3 sessions where I had to choose between two tracks.
[11:22:31] <tale> Well mcr, that's what you get for being active in two dozen groups.
[11:22:46] Kaname Nishizuka leaves the room
[11:22:46] <brong> mcr: boasting about being overworked is so 2018
[11:22:50] Peter Feil leaves the room
[11:22:50] Peter Feil joins the room
[11:22:51] <brong> it's not cool any more
[11:22:53] <brong> :p
[11:23:04] <Carrick> +1 to Andrew re: meeting being over a week rather than spread out
[11:23:09] <Carrick> easier to focus
[11:23:11] <tale> Hah, and I was about to say "said with envy for your enthusiasm"
[11:23:20] <mcr> I think that we could spread out a bit more over the day.
[11:23:38] <mcr> go read Carsten's list of IoT-ish meetings.
[11:23:47] <Alexandre Petrescu> mcr: I thought of 'patching' two sessions into one, by way of relaying mic and speaker.
[11:24:07] Shwetha Bhandari joins the room
[11:24:11] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[11:24:12] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[11:24:15] Jonathan Hoyland leaves the room
[11:24:16] Sean Croghan joins the room
[11:24:21] <Vittorio Bertola> However, many side / extra meetings were scheduled after 16:00 UTC so the meeting is in fact already spreading out over seven hours basically without breaks
[11:24:24] <mcr> yup, I've had social events on zoom. I don't go to social events anymore.
[11:24:36] <Klensin> We have many parallel sessions in f2f meetings.  If it is worse this time, is that because a less-good job was done with scheduling or because the online setup encourages trying to be in two places at once more than running between physical rooms does?
[11:24:38] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[11:24:44] Daniel Migault joins the room
[11:24:48] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[11:24:54] <brong> mcr: I've done 100 person social events with breakout rooms.... it's OK, but kinda random - you need to be able to change rooms yourself
[11:25:26] <Adrian Farrel> How can people not love gather.town? It is so much like a real IETF hallway it is uncanny
[11:25:28] <mcr> I'll take webex any day over zoom, and I hate webex.
[11:25:32] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[11:25:39] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[11:25:40] Monika Ermert joins the room
[11:25:42] <mcr> I really like gather.town. I guess there is a thread hating it, but I haven't read that yet.
[11:25:58] <Mike Hoye> When blogging took off, there was suddenly this forum to write in that wasn't constrained to previous writing-lengths - short story, novella, column-inches, etc. You could say what you had to say and stop when you were done.
[11:26:02] <Alexandre Petrescu> gather.town video/audio not on on IPv6.  That's one reason to not use it.
[11:26:09] <Bill Fenner> I wanted to hate gather.town, but I kinda liked it over IPv4
[11:26:30] <Meetecho> Alexandre Petrescu: worth mentioning that gather.town uses peer-to-peer webrtc, and doesn't use an SFU/server
[11:26:31] <RjS> I don't think there's a hating-on-it thread?
[11:26:42] <andrew_campling> @mcr Conversely I much prefer Zoom to Webex and Teams, am growing to like Meetecho too
[11:26:44] <tale> I kind of like gather.town too, but I wish it had somewhat better notifications, and timestamps for messages.
[11:26:46] <Mike Hoye> I think this is going to be the same, as we figure out what scheduling  can look like when we don't need physcial hotel rooms.
[11:26:48] <Meetecho> As such, the success of connections depends on whether both ends support the same things
[11:27:01] <Jay Daley> The survey was the 108 planning survey https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/survey-planning-possible-online-meetings-responses.pdf  p62 shows the views people had on meeting structure
[11:27:07] <Meetecho> If you're ipv6 only and someone else ipv4 only, no candidate may help (unless maybe a TURN server helps)
[11:27:11] Bernie Hoeneisen joins the room
[11:27:12] <Chris Box> I like gather.town; it's a useful addition.
[11:27:18] <tale> I definitely had a few interactions thanks to gather.town that I'm sure would not have happened just from being in Jabber or Slack
[11:27:35] <Toerless Eckert> Jaley: yes, i know that survey, i am saying we may need more in the future the more options we want to get closure on.
[11:27:41] <brong> same, I had some good chats in gather.town
[11:27:43] <Alexandre Petrescu> "If you're ipv6 only and someone else ipv4 only, no candidate may help (unless maybe a TURN server helps)" - it means if no-one is on IPv6 in gather.town then they cant talk to me?
[11:28:16] <andrew_campling> A scheduled time for side meetings would be good too, this seems to have been missed this time round
[11:28:17] <Meetecho> Alexandre Petrescu: yes
[11:28:18] Oliver Borchert joins the room
[11:28:19] <tale> But on the town side, several times someone sent me a message in gather.town and I had no idea it was there, whether I was legit afk or just focused on something else at my desk.  And no temporal indication of when it happened.
[11:28:21] <Mallory Knodel> Apologies to all, aparently I can put myself in queue whenever I want.
[11:28:27] <Mallory Knodel> And speak immediately
[11:28:32] <tale> er *on the down side
[11:28:33] <Carrick> That happened to me too, Ted, and I don't know why
[11:28:37] <Mallory Knodel> Not my intention to be sending you all that audio!
[11:28:38] <Alexandre Petrescu> "Meetecho" - that is not encouraging, but thank you for the clarification.
[11:28:40] <mcr> the 2nd break was a bit short for me.
[11:28:48] <Meetecho> But that's the p2p nature: again, TURN might help in that case, but it's not straigthforward
[11:28:54] <teirdes> it's possible to shortline the queue but please don't :P
[11:29:29] <andrew_campling> @Mallory you need the second mic icon for the queue - the first one is push-to-talk
[11:29:44] <mcr> @andrew_campling, I'm comparing webrtc zoom to webrtc webex, because "native" unsandboxes apps that run on windows-only are so 2006.
[11:29:55] <sureshk@jabber.org> @Mallory: the mic with the blue hand symbol puts you in the queue
[11:30:09] <sureshk@jabber.org> The only with the blue play button skips the queue
[11:30:11] <mcr> and if you are using non-sandboxed stuff, then ...
[11:30:17] <Shivan Sahib> the UX around queue vs speak-immediately is not obvious..
[11:30:25] <Jason Livingood> great suggestion Ted!
[11:30:30] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[11:30:35] <alex-meetecho> Mallory Knodel: yes, you can both put yourself in the queue or send you audio directly without going through the queue :)
[11:30:42] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[11:30:43] <Meetecho> Shivan Sahib: fair point, we did take notes from feedback this week and we'll work to improve it
[11:30:55] <Shivan Sahib> :) thanks!
[11:31:24] Chris Lemmons joins the room
[11:31:26] Kireeti Kompella leaves the room
[11:31:34] Yisong Liu joins the room
[11:32:08] <Vittorio Bertola> @alex-meetecho that's democratic but counter-intuitive :)
[11:33:02] <andrew_campling> @Meetecho Maybe put the push-to-talk mic icon behind virtual glass, separate it visually from the three queue icons?  
[11:33:03] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[11:33:04] <Alexandre Petrescu> Meetecho - I can understand the nature of p2p, but there is an additional thing: the vertical button bar doesnt work fully either; that's not p2p I think.
[11:33:07] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:33:10] <Alexandre Petrescu> Someone is driving?
[11:33:24] <Daniel Migault> When scheduling meeting particpant TZ may may one thing to consider. This could maybe help to have bad time slot as opposed to really bad time slots.
[11:33:27] <tale> Those note include that a combined queue-for-combined-a/v should be a thing, right?
[11:33:28] <teirdes> it's like an informal way of saying that someone gives people permission to speak after they've been in the queue
[11:33:41] Stephen McQuistin joins the room
[11:33:45] <Meetecho> Alexandre Petrescu: can't help on that, not familiar with the tool, we're not involved in it :)
[11:33:46] <Alexandre Petrescu> (thanks for clarification Amelia)
[11:33:51] Yisong Liu leaves the room
[11:33:57] <Daniel Migault> I am currently doing this when interim meeting are planned.
[11:34:03] <Meetecho> I was defending them on why it may not work for you
[11:34:05] <Alexandre Petrescu> "Alexandre Petrescu: can't help on that, not familiar with the tool, we're not involved in it :)" - yes, let's downgrade it.
[11:34:41] <Meetecho> Downgrade?
[11:35:13] <sureshk@jabber.org> <bless you>
[11:35:24] <Alexandre Petrescu> One big problem with video of all meeting tools is the loss of eye contact.
[11:35:24] Simon Leinen joins the room
[11:35:37] <Ben Campbell> +1 mark. I dropped out of queue because I was going to say the same thing.
[11:36:23] <Richard Barnes> +100 Mark
[11:36:38] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[11:36:43] <Ted Lemon> My experience is that interims are often scheduled at really bad times and I generally don’t show up for them unless I absolutely have to.
[11:36:45] <Joel Halpern> Moving all of the IETF WGs into sequences of virtual interims would be painful for me in many regards.
[11:36:48] <Richard Barnes> Mark has the floating head routine *down*
[11:36:54] <Mirja Kühlewind> I actually liked the model we had last time a bit better where we only used this week for some important sessions (and as deadline)
[11:36:58] <Peter Koch> One reason for full IETF-Meetings rather that Area-wide meetings or even sequences of WG meetings used to be "cross area fertilization" achieved by random (or not) walkins into other groups; not sure that is still a goal, but I wish it was
[11:37:03] <Ben Campbell> It's hard to block a full week under any circumstances, and we don't get the value back for it for a full week virtual meeting
[11:37:22] <mcr> +1 Mirja.  A light week + many virtual meetings.
[11:37:24] <Daniel Migault> @ mark +1
[11:37:26] <Ted Lemon> @peter exactly
[11:37:40] <Harald Alvestrand> I do visit WGs from multiple areas, even in this format.
[11:37:43] <Richard Barnes> @Peter - really split on that.  a lot of times "tourism" isn't all that useful, can be a drag on real work.
[11:37:56] <Mirja Kühlewind> @ted lemon but I actually found some of the interims with only main contributors more productive/more interactive
[11:37:58] <Mike Hoye> Discoverability is important.
[11:38:03] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[11:38:03] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:38:13] <Mirja Kühlewind> I think we need both: small focus meetings and larger sync-up points
[11:38:14] Jeffrey Yasskin joins the room
[11:38:16] <mcr> run away! run away!
[11:38:23] <Ben Campbell> As I see it, the only real plus to meeting for a full week is to remember how to do it for when we can meet in person again.
[11:38:31] <RjS> there is an effect that would be lost if we went to a fully distributed schedule, related to deadline response
[11:38:58] <Mike Bishop> I'm torn over the idea of pre-recording presentations.  On the one hand, having sat through a session that was all recapping drafts and very little discussion, that sounds very appealing.  However, I predict that roughly the same minority will have watched the videos as will have read the drafts.
[11:39:00] <Ben Campbell> @RjS: The deadline doesn't have to be the same for every wg
[11:39:16] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[11:39:26] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:39:31] <RjS> We get a slightly different outcome when people are working to the same deadline across different groups that actually _helps_ with cross-area participation and thinking towards the whole Internet vs a specific problem.
[11:39:33] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[11:39:46] <Mike Hoye> The biggest difference between the sciences and the arts at the university level is the expectations about whether or not you've done the reading before coming to class.
[11:39:46] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[11:39:55] <Peter Koch> @Richards depends on how "tourists" behave, but I don't think the term gets the gist of what was the intent (might be describing part of reality, though)
[11:40:22] <RjS> @ben - you didn't wait long enough for my point. Of course we dont _have_ to have a common deadline, but there is an effect that it has that we need to be sure we understand.
[11:40:22] <Jason Livingood> No to draft deadlines! :-)
[11:40:29] <Richard Barnes> the WG's i'm active in have basically given up publishing I-Ds except for major milestones, so draft deadlines don't really impact us :)
[11:40:34] <sureshk@jabber.org> @Simon, Tobia, Alex: It would be good to be able to cut off the queue. I will send a request.
[11:40:44] <Mirja Kühlewind> I really think we need deadlines still to have some pressure to make progress
[11:40:45] jmagallanes leaves the room
[11:40:45] jmagallanes joins the room
[11:40:55] <Daniel Migault> draft deadline was not really enforced as lots of folks posted an update as soon as the meeting was open.
[11:40:56] <Mirja Kühlewind> we need the deadlines more than the meeting IMO
[11:40:59] <Richard Barnes> @Mirja if you need the deadlines to make progress, close the WG
[11:41:09] <Vittorio Bertola> Is there an issue tracker where to check/submit feature requests for Meetecho?
[11:41:14] <Mike Hoye> Mirja: The rust community has done a lot of good work here that we can learn from.
[11:41:14] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[11:41:17] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[11:41:23] <RjS> the draft deadline is a bit of a herring - if you _meet_ the meeting provides a deadline that is unavoidable.
[11:41:34] <Richard Barnes> @RjS++
[11:41:40] <Alissa Cooper> @vittori: send email to tools-discuss@ietf.org
[11:41:41] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[11:41:42] <Meetecho> On pre-recorded presentations, there was a conference last month called CommCon, organized by a UK person, that used an interesting approach: pre-recorded talk played on YouTube at scheduled times, followed by a live Q&A via WebRTC after that (using Jitsi in that case)
[11:41:51] <alex-meetecho> Vittorio Bertola: the tools-discuss list is the right place
[11:41:51] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[11:41:52] Jason Livingood joins the room
[11:41:54] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:42:07] <Vittorio Bertola> Deadlines are useful. For example, when you need to tell colleagues/bosses "please let's defer this to next week so that this week I can write and deliver the I-D by the deadline".
[11:42:08] <Toerless Eckert> lovsl government. Let WGs decide on its deadline policies
[11:42:09] Niket Agrawal joins the room
[11:42:23] Alissa joins the room
[11:42:33] <Jason Livingood> +1 Toerless
[11:42:47] <Alexandre Petrescu> pre-recorded video presentations sounds attractive idea.
[11:42:53] <Ben Campbell> I also found time-zone shifting to get harder as the week went on. Not easier like it does in f2f meeting. That would be less of a problem for interimsm
[11:42:58] <Ted Hardie> Chairs, given Dan's comments on both time zones and the structure, maybe we should go through the full slide set before doing more open mic time?
[11:42:58] <Vittorio Bertola> Yet another IETF list :-(
[11:43:19] <RjS> @ben - not if you're as engaged as mcr
[11:43:19] <Alexandre Petrescu> Timezone: why do we use 'UTC' when most people use like city-time.
[11:43:28] <mcr> we need a +1 tool.
[11:43:32] <Klensin> @Ben there are two downsides.  First, the IETF is tending, I think, more toward homogeneity.  Holding nothing but WG-specific meetings, scheduled for the convenience of the active participants in those WGs, is going to tend to promote that and effectively exclude new entrants into the WG from inconvenient time zones.  Second, the IETF's model for developing specs that actually work depends on cross-area and cross-WG review and interactions.  Turning ourselves into less of one organization with many different topics into a collection of mutuaully-isolated WGs, held together only by the IESG, might be very harmful to that.
[11:43:39] <Shivan Sahib> @mcr emoji reactions
[11:43:50] <Richard Barnes> @mcr we definitely do not
[11:43:51] <RjS> in his case, if we completely smeared the meeting times through the year, he'd _never_ sleep in the same timezone two days in a row
[11:43:51] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[11:43:58] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:44:12] <Jeffrey Yasskin> &lt;reaction&gt;:thumbsup:&lt;/reaction&gt;
[11:44:27] <Alexandre Petrescu> copy paste :thumbsup:
[11:44:42] <Ben Campbell> @John: On your first point, there's no reason we can't ask wgs to stagger their tzs for interims.
[11:44:43] <mcr> I'm not really that engaged. Almost all of the IoT people have the same conflicts.  People don't work in just "routing" anymore.
[11:44:48] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[11:44:58] <tale> +1 to John
[11:45:03] Andrew S leaves the room
[11:45:03] Andrew S joins the room
[11:45:06] Chris Wendt joins the room
[11:45:07] <Ben Campbell> On the second, I agree that is the value of f2f meetings. I'm not sure we get that value in a virtual meeting
[11:45:14] Andrew S leaves the room
[11:45:21] Andrew S joins the room
[11:45:35] <mcr> we do async better than anywhere else already.
[11:46:18] <Ted Lemon> that’s a completely bizarre assertion, Michael.
[11:46:22] <Klensin> @Ben: yep.  But unless we insist (different from "ask"), WGs have every incentive to optimize the efficiency of the active participants.
[11:46:28] <Carrick> Ted: agreed
[11:46:40] <Carrick> I can't agree that this week was complete shit. Far from it
[11:46:41] <brong> the two sessions I have chaired went very nicely and finished 5 minutes early.  I don't know what this "not working" thing is
[11:46:43] <brong> :p
[11:46:49] <Ted Lemon> @carrick same
[11:46:54] <mcr> nobody else knows how to do email as well as IETF.  We invented email.
[11:46:58] <Sam Weiler> thinking about the cross-area review and tourism conversation: how much would it help to have a common (importable) calendar of interims?
[11:47:05] <Alexandre Petrescu> The IoT domain indeed needs to attend several WGs that I could list if necessary.
[11:47:08] <Ted Lemon> Michael, are you kidding? We are terrible at email.
[11:47:10] Murugiah Souppaya joins the room
[11:47:11] <brong> mcr: that's a scary thought
[11:47:16] <andrew_campling> +1 Carrick
[11:47:17] <Ted Lemon> We waste so much time talking past each other.
[11:47:26] <brong> Ted: have you seen how other people do email?
[11:47:30] <Ted Lemon> I’ve participated in online colloquiums that were /much/ more effective than IETF.
[11:47:46] <brong> I've participated in much worse too... we're in the middle somewhere
[11:47:47] <tale> Is that not an inevitable result of being a group of humans of any non-trivial size, Ted?
[11:47:50] <Ben Campbell> BTW, not having a "meeting week" does not mean we have to give up whole-IETF meetings. Maybe a "meeting week" should be all plenary-type meetings and BoFs. (More like 107)
[11:47:57] <Ted Lemon> nothing is inevitable
[11:48:04] Jonathan Reed joins the room
[11:48:15] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[11:48:17] <Sam Weiler> Ben: W3C is doing something like that this October - no "normal" WG meetings - only the BOF-type things.
[11:48:17] <Tim Chown> I'm sure nothing could go wrong by 12 people in San Jose deciding everything...
[11:48:20] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:48:25] <mcr> +1 Ben Campbell: plenary and BOFs.
[11:48:27] <Carrick> Tim: hahaha
[11:48:28] <Richard Barnes> @Ben - +1 i thought 107 was a bit better experience
[11:48:29] dhruvdhody joins the room
[11:48:46] <Mike Hoye> "we are better at this technology than anyone else" is a risky position
[11:48:49] <Alissa> isn't 12 people in san diego deciding something how the ietf started?
[11:48:52] <Toerless Eckert> @Tim: about as little as 122 people in D.C.
[11:48:53] <Ted Lemon> IETF 107 was kind of a non-experience for me.
[11:49:03] <Carrick> +1 Ted
[11:49:14] <andrew_campling> +1 Ted
[11:49:15] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[11:49:18] <mcr> April's long list of virtual meetings, was more of a marathon than the normal IETF Sprint.  It was exhausting. I later figured out that I was also dealing with a medication change :-(
[11:49:22] Eva Ignatuschtschenko joins the room
[11:49:52] <Peter Feil> many multinational companies have already rules/policies for online meetings. It would be a good idea to collect and summarieze these rules
[11:50:15] <brong> YES,
[11:50:17] <Alexandre Petrescu> also, list their tools.  I maintain a list of 2 or 3 at work.
[11:50:22] <brong> schedule all meetings to annoy Mark
[11:50:23] <sureshk@jabber.org> Not just Mark
[11:50:24] <Klensin> @Peter Yes
[11:50:26] mcr want RFC on how to do floating head lighting.
[11:50:27] <sureshk@jabber.org> Bron as well :-)
[11:50:28] <Carrick> Gonna have to vote for floating head
[11:50:33] Murray Kucherawy joins the room
[11:50:39] <Jeffrey Yasskin> I strongly favor making the U.S. sometimes get up in the middle of the night. :)
[11:50:47] <andrew_campling> Def +1 for floating head
[11:50:58] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:51:07] <Toerless Eckert> current policy is to use TZ of original meeting place.
[11:51:08] <RjS> (It's not breaking anything right now, but the slides are not displayed correctly)
[11:51:16] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:51:16] <Ted Lemon> Jeffery, I attended the last Singapore meeting remotely, and it worked pretty well for me other than the lack of parity.
[11:51:19] <mcr> special IETF hotels where they offer breakfast at 16:00.
[11:51:25] <Toerless Eckert> So Host pays for having its employees get good times ;-)
[11:51:33] Timothy Carlin leaves the room
[11:51:47] <sureshk@jabber.org> @RjS: I unmaximized my Chrome
[11:51:57] <sureshk@jabber.org> Looks like that crops the view on the sharing too
[11:51:58] <RjS> helped - thanks
[11:52:06] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[11:52:20] <Ben Campbell> @mcr: I want a hotel with virtual windows that move the sun to the meeting tz
[11:52:29] <mcr> Ben: that would be cool.
[11:52:31] <tale> I recently lamented that we weren't on the schedule we had at Argentina, while fully aware that of course we are for some people.
[11:52:31] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[11:52:34] <Sam Weiler> @mnot:  LOL
[11:52:34] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[11:52:34] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[11:52:42] <Klensin> @Sam: happy to have an offline conversation and even collaborate on a draft.
[11:52:43] <teirdes> what are the goals of the meetings or of the ietf?
[11:52:45] <Ted Lemon> THe thing that really frustrated me about Cullen’s response is that there is value in preparing a presentation and presenting it that is independent of the value of producing a draft and submitting it. And there is value in discussion. One of the ways we fail in-perosn is that discussions are never given enough time and hence aren’t productive. But they do serve to damage online discussions.
[11:52:49] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[11:52:54] Peter Feil leaves the room
[11:53:01] <andrew_campling> Continuing the policy of rotating timezones for each meeting seems best for groing participation
[11:53:01] <Tim Chown> death by powerpoint
[11:53:08] <Tim Chown> @ted
[11:53:10] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[11:53:15] <Daniel Migault> do we have the link to the calculator ?
[11:53:19] <Toerless Eckert> @Ted: +1, but not sure fluffy spoke out against that
[11:53:26] Peter Feil joins the room
[11:53:28] <Ted Lemon> He pretty much did.
[11:53:47] <Jay Daley> It's not clear to me how the problem of scheduling a big meeting in a way to avoid and/or minimise pain becomes any less of a problem by pushing that decision to individual WGs.
[11:53:49] <tale> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meeting.html
[11:53:59] <Ted Lemon> @jay +1
[11:54:07] <Cullen Jennings> FWIW … I totally agree with Klensin that cross area review. More generally broad review from a diverse set of points of view may be the the single biggest attribute of why IETF protocols have been so successful
[11:54:07] Simon Romano leaves the room
[11:54:08] <Alexandre Petrescu> Timezone notation is an issue for me.  The use of 'UTC' is problematic.
[11:54:18] <mcr> @tale: that's not the pain calculator. It was a Google Sheet
[11:54:21] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[11:54:22] <Ted Lemon> “solar time?”
[11:54:24] <tale> Ah my mistake
[11:54:26] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[11:54:28] <Mike Hoye> Swatch time.
[11:54:32] Jonathan Lennox joins the room
[11:54:37] <tale> Alexandre, can you expand on that thought?
[11:54:38] <Toerless Eckert> jay: for my wg for example i think -00 need a deadline of 2 weeks to get readers. Doc in other process stages not so much
[11:54:41] <mcr> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1E8SnbkXk4K4rZVgMzK3m0UeNgmJdRfMgeBkA5Z6rQ7Q/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=103865510556691933694
[11:54:43] <brong> I disagree with Mark here - it's much easier for me (and many others) to say "I'm focusing on IETF this week" rather than lots of bitty meetings at weird times.  And I could time-shift my body a bit this week and cancel my 7ams
[11:54:52] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[11:54:54] <Ted Lemon> @brong same
[11:54:54] <Alexandre Petrescu> "Alexandre, can you expand on that thought?" - in what City is UTC?
[11:54:57] <Shivan Sahib> +1 brong
[11:54:57] <mcr> You make yourself a writable copy.
[11:54:58] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[11:55:05] Eliot Lear joins the room
[11:55:11] nygren joins the room
[11:55:13] <andrew_campling> Yes to deadlines etc to help stuff get done
[11:55:22] Niket Agrawal leaves the room
[11:55:26] <Ted Lemon> UTC is the time zone where time_t = 0 is January 1, 1970. (ducks)
[11:55:30] <Ben Campbell> @Bron: I found the opposite. I have people that are perfectly fine for me to be unavailable at a certain time, but push back hard on the whole week thing
[11:55:34] Simon Romano joins the room
[11:55:34] <tale> ... why does it matter?  It's not in a city.  It's in.the time continuum.
[11:55:36] <Tim Chown> you can have deadlines through the year if the deadlines are tied to interim meeting dates
[11:55:38] <Toerless Eckert> @alexandre: according to cisco webex the city of "Azores" ;-)
[11:55:40] <Alissa> we should definitely continue bits-n-bites
[11:55:52] <Ben Campbell> It would have been easier if I could have said "Sorry, I will be in Spain all week"
[11:55:54] <Tim Chown> having 500 drafts come out in a day doesn't really help anyone who wants to read them.
[11:55:58] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[11:56:02] <Carrick> I think all those other things like newcomer events are great
[11:56:03] Glenn Deen joins the room
[11:56:06] <Alexandre Petrescu> "@alexandre: according to cisco webex the city of "Azores" ;-)" - not many people from Azore come to IETF...
[11:56:08] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[11:56:19] <Toerless Eckert> @tim: if you want to reac 500 drafts you are not th target audience
[11:56:23] <Ted Lemon> Interims feel like a DoS attack to me. Professional standards people can show up every two weeks and spend a lot of time on a WG. I can’t do that anymore.
[11:56:23] <brong> Ben Campbell: how do they handle the physical IETF weeks?
[11:56:24] <tale> I guess apart from whatever the answer to that is, what do you think is a superior alternative?
[11:56:37] <Ted Hardie> @alissa snack box delivery, like the mailed-out t-shirts?
[11:56:38] <Ben Campbell> Also, I've really screwed up the schedule of our cats this week. They are going to expect breakfast at 0530 all the time, now
[11:56:43] <Klensin> @Ted: yes, but what I think I've seen this week is our getting sloppier (than f2f) about agendas, meeting materials, limits on presentations, focused discussoins, etc.   Some of  that is probably just our getting used to working this way, but the lateness of posting of materials for this WG is symptomatic of things that don't help.
[11:56:48] <Ted Lemon> @ted +1
[11:57:07] <mcr> the internet *is* for cat videos. Did you get any new ones Ben?
[11:57:15] <Avri Doria> i agree with those who see benefit of having a concentrated period and doing the time shift as necessary. time shifting may give a similar impression to jet lag, but at least there is no jet.
[11:57:18] <Tim Chown> but how many Was do people REALLY focus on, and in how many are they tourists?  in a physical meeting many people seem to pay 10% attention, where in virtual, well...
[11:57:20] <Ted Lemon> @klensin the groups I attended had pretty good agendas, but I agree that there seems to be a push in that direction.
[11:57:25] <Ben Campbell> @Bron: Not great, but they accept "I'm out of town" better than " I can't attend your 4pm meeting because I've already been awake too long..."
[11:57:35] <Ted Lemon> @tim that’s the wrong question
[11:57:47] <Jeffrey Yasskin> @Ben: I've been telling people "I'm in Madrid this week."
[11:57:59] <Harald Alvestrand> I did see a side meeting scheduled - which of course collided with a non-IETF event for me :-)
[11:58:02] <Ted Lemon> I almost always don’t get to participate in discussion sthat are important to me because of conflicts, but I almost never need to listen to every presentation in a meeting block.
[11:58:03] Pete Resnick (the other one) joins the room
[11:58:27] <Ted Lemon> The idea that every wg participant is actually interested in every draft is not my experience. Also, a certain percentage of drafts are just chaff.
[11:58:30] <brong> Ben Campbell: I guess I get to just say "no" to meetings
[11:58:31] <Ben Campbell> @Ted H: IETF cookie recipes
[11:58:45] <Tim Chown> @ted sure, but that's an argument for stretching it out, fewer conflicts,
[11:58:51] Kirsty P leaves the room
[11:58:53] <brong> though I still got up for our Board meeting, but then I've done them at 4am from IETFs too
[11:58:55] <Ted Lemon> no, it’s an argument for not having wg blocks.
[11:58:56] <Avri Doria> i aalso think that this is still new, so most peoples limits have not acclimated over time and experience.
[11:58:56] <Ted Hardie> @Ben Ah yes, the "read the sheet music at the same time" virtual concert experience.
[11:59:11] Jaime Jimenez joins the room
[11:59:12] <Tim Chown> there are chaff drafts? :-o
[11:59:16] <Jonathan Lennox> It'd be very hard for a virtual snacks to match the snack breaks in Bangkok last time
[11:59:18] <Jeffrey Yasskin> :thumbsup: Avri
[11:59:22] <Richard Barnes> https://joythebaker.com/2014/05/the-best-brown-butter-chocolate-chip-cookies/
[11:59:22] <Ted Lemon> I know, you’re shocked, tim. :)
[11:59:58] <Carrick> Richard: ty +1
[12:00:16] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[12:00:21] Monika Ermert joins the room
[12:00:30] <Alexandre Petrescu> Automatic translation is useful in online mtg tools.
[12:00:44] John Border joins the room
[12:00:46] <Alexandre Petrescu> (language translation)
[12:00:58] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:00:59] <Cullen Jennings> Interesting point … I did not meet any new person at this meeting. I don't recall even seeing a comment at a mic from a person I did not know.
[12:00:59] <Alexandre Petrescu> (human language)
[12:01:06] <andrew_campling> IMHO The gather town ui felt like an 80s computer game
[12:01:06] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:01:12] <Carrick> +1 Dan. I didn't want to go to Gather.town just to wander around
[12:01:21] <Ben Campbell> @fluffy: cause you know everybody
[12:01:22] <Carrick> @andrew: I love it XD
[12:01:27] <Ted Lemon> yeah, or like those “online malls” that people were pushing in 1998
[12:01:33] <Alexandre Petrescu> A newcomer I talked to on IPv4 gather.town used 2 headsets simultaneously.  I learned something.
[12:01:35] <Cullen Jennings> Ever face to face meeting I havre meant new people or got to talk to a person that I may recognize the face of but had never really talked to
[12:01:51] <Joel Halpern> There is also an potential side-effect (that I find useful) to having a limited time block.  It makes it easier for chairs to say to some folks "no, that is not appropriate for this slot."  We have folks who simply want to insist on presenting their material.  Some even insisting on multiple presentations even with no WG engagement.   If we go to arbitrary numbers of interims per WG, this gets harder (nor impossible, just harder) to manage.
[12:01:59] <Ted Lemon> @cullen yeah I think we need a way to actually stir the mix and we didn’t do that here
[12:01:59] <Tim Chown> gather town is like netback, without the medusae
[12:02:00] <Cullen Jennings> I did wander around gather.town but only talked to people I know well
[12:02:02] <Shivan Sahib> Didn't try out gather.town much but I imagine WGs/RGs could say something like "we'll be hanging out at gather.town at X time"
[12:02:02] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:02:04] <tale> Huh, why 2 headsets simultaneously
[12:02:19] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:02:31] <Toerless Eckert> @tim: not sure about the medusa ;-)
[12:02:34] <Alexandre Petrescu> 2 headsets two meetings I suppose
[12:02:37] <Mirja Kühlewind> yes two computers, two headphones, two ears
[12:02:37] <Ben Campbell> @cullen: I wonder if the old "new attendee meet and greet" would work better in gathertown than it did IRL
[12:02:47] <Ted Lemon> @joel do you have that problem on the mailing list?
[12:02:48] <Ben Campbell> (the chair/new attendee thing)
[12:02:55] Eva Ignatuschtschenko leaves the room
[12:02:58] <Tim Chown> @roerless and I found no scroll of genocide to get rid of them...
[12:03:05] <Alexandre Petrescu> no, no two ears: two pairs of headsets: one intra one etra auricular.
[12:03:09] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[12:03:14] <Avri Doria> a meeting in each ear is an advanced remote participation skill.
[12:03:19] Richard Barnes joins the room
[12:03:38] <Alexandre Petrescu> I suspect with that ears suggestion one could do 4 distinct sessions.
[12:03:59] <Ted Lemon> @wes same. 11 hours of meetings on Wednesday.
[12:04:10] <Carrick> Ted: yikes!
[12:04:14] <brong> yeah, I told work people I'd have a half day - get up at lunch time and do 4 hours' work
[12:04:31] <Jeffrey Yasskin> We should explicitly advise people to pretend they're actually traveling during the week, so set the boundary and decline any meeting you wouldn't accept while traveling.
[12:04:37] <Glenn Deen> @wes yes - the double duty has been brutal this week.  IETF on madrid time, rest of work and family still on local time.
[12:05:02] <Einar Bohlin> +1 @Jeffrey
[12:05:11] <Tim Chown> well double duty is your choice, surely?  you can mark yourself away for "work" hours?
[12:05:17] <Alexandre Petrescu> The financial model this time seemed very appropriate to me.
[12:05:22] <Ben Campbell> On the co-worker issue: It might be easier _now_ where most people are wfh than it would be some other time where people are sitting in offices with a bunch of non-IETF-participants
[12:05:29] <brong> I got work to pay for an airbnb so I'm not at home and dealing with home issues
[12:05:30] <RjS> @Tim - for senior people maybe
[12:05:34] <brong> and can sleep in!
[12:05:36] <Glenn Deen> @Tim- doesn't work with family
[12:05:36] <Mirja Kühlewind> I did have 8-9h of meetings not during the IETF week...
[12:05:48] <Klensin> @Jeffery: sure.  But, for those who have them, hard to explain to cats, dogs, family...
[12:05:59] <Tim Chown> sure, with family if at home, but not work
[12:06:07] <RjS> folks early in their careers may have less authority to assert the kind of "away" we're talking about
[12:06:10] <Alexandre Petrescu> airbnb forbidden in many places for dubious tax evasion reasons
[12:06:17] <Chris Lemmons> Yeah, my coworkers have been very understanding and flexible. My kids, less so. I'm living on two 4-hour shifts of sleep instead of one 8-hour. It's a bit easier to totally get away when I'm physically absent.
[12:06:25] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[12:06:25] <Jeffrey Yasskin> "Individual choices" usually aren't ... but official IETF advice could help people make more comfortable "choices".
[12:06:27] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[12:06:46] <Mallory Knodel> Comparing IETF to Black Hat isn't as useful as it might seem.
[12:06:46] <Jay Daley> I understood that sponsorship was not within scope for SHMOO
[12:06:47] <Eliot Lear> For those who didn't try gathertown, I *LOVED* it.
[12:07:00] <Carrick> @Eliot +1
[12:07:12] <Tim Chown> gather town does let you stalk people, which is kind of scary...
[12:07:24] <Joel Halpern> @Ted with the current setup, one of the ways of pushing back is the old "no email discussion, no slot".  And no, the folks who I am concerned about do not get much email discussion.  If they ddi, I would not have a problem giving them time.
[12:07:37] <Alexandre Petrescu> gathertown: an interlocutor told it was reminding him 'kingtown' 1990s game, but bazooka missing, laughs.
[12:07:38] <Eliot Lear> @Tim.  Good point.  Probably want a block function.
[12:07:39] <Klensin> In particular, privacy protections with gather (and probably similar tools)
[12:07:41] <mcr> Loved Gather.Town. I missed getting to sessions even (was late)
[12:07:43] <Toerless Eckert> @Tim: use ghost mode
[12:08:30] <Daniel Migault> also appreciated gather.town while I woudl have probably though of it as foolish before trying.
[12:08:31] <nygren > Having some more time windows (eg, a social) for gathertown might help.  With other/family committments it is much harder to just go there to see what it is like without some specific time windows I can put on my calendar.
[12:08:36] <Tim Chown> if we had fortnite that could be used instead of wg hums.
[12:08:46] Sanjay Mishra joins the room
[12:09:02] <Klensin> @Joel: make that "no email discussion, no drafts in advance, no meeting materials posted several days or a week in advance, etc., = no slot"
[12:09:09] <Ben Campbell> When I have 3 siamese cats howling for breakfast at 0530 saturday morning, I'm going to think of all of you :-)
[12:09:17] <Ted Lemon> MMORPG FTW. I vote for reviving MxO
[12:09:19] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: hotels exist in many places though, and can give a similar experience
[12:09:22] <Alexandre Petrescu> For the financing question, modulo Jay's suggestion that the topic might not be in scope, the infrastructure costs are a real issue.  Who pays the office where from I attend the virtual meeting (my employer? me at home? certainly not the IETF).
[12:09:38] <Mike Hoye> Internet Engineering Task Fortnite
[12:09:59] <Carrick> Mike: XD
[12:10:06] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: the IETF doesn't pay for your accommodation at a regular meeting either
[12:10:52] <brong> Sureshy you need to stop presenting first
[12:10:58] <Ted Lemon> @joel why would “no email discussion, no slot” not work for the distributed-time model? Time pressure would still exist, and it seems like a reasonable ask.
[12:11:05] <Alexandre Petrescu> There was also a deep question by a chair, about the reason of why we meet for IETF.  That is a good starting point for a draft.
[12:11:11] <nygren > How much visibility have people been getting into the sponsors other than Ericsson?  (Other than the call-out in the plenary, the loss of the hallway signage does seem like other sponsors are seen less?)
[12:11:16] <Shivan Sahib> fwiw the fee waiver program seems to be working well. The two people I was a guide for used them to attend IETF for the first time, and they were already contributing
[12:11:45] <Alexandre Petrescu> brong, but the IETF pays for office (room) for meeting.  Now the room is no longer paid by IETF.
[12:12:03] <Dan York> @nygren - good point!
[12:12:17] Mike Hoye waves
[12:12:26] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: I'm not sure I understand what you need that's not available in an accomodation facility similar to the one you would have if at a physical IETF
[12:12:42] <brong> you need working internet, but otherwise not much space
[12:12:52] Peter Feil leaves the room
[12:12:53] <brong> and the chairs that the IETF pays for aren't anything fancy
[12:12:59] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[12:13:00] Francois Ortolan joins the room
[12:13:06] <Alissa> All of the sponsors have signage in gather.town, logos on the meeting web site, and were thanked in the pre-IETF IESG report (as usual).
[12:13:14] <Alexandre Petrescu> "I'm not sure I understand what you need that's not available in an accomodation facility similar to the one you would have if at a physical IETF" - I work right now in a room that is real and that is not paid by IETF, as IETF would pay a room if I were in a real IETF meeting. (I do not talk about the bed where I sleep).
[12:13:24] Peter Feil joins the room
[12:13:37] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: what are you asking for?  The IETF to pay for the room you're in somehoe?
[12:13:42] <brong> somehow
[12:13:45] <andrew_campling> The chat/Jabber integration in Meetecho is really good, if I could still see the participant list in Meetecho alongside chat I wouldn't bother with a Jabber client too
[12:13:54] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:14:03] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:14:11] <Meetecho> andrew_campling: it's in the feedback we collected during the week, we'll see what we can do :)
[12:14:12] <Mike Bishop> I have a feeling that the difference in meeting fee covers a lot of the difference in supplied meeting space.
[12:14:14] <Alexandre Petrescu> "Alexandre Petrescu: what are you asking for? The IETF to pay for the room you're in somehoe? 14:13:37 somehow" -no, I dont ask that.  I ask IETF to not ask me to pay for a room to meet.
[12:14:16] Suzanne Woolf joins the room
[12:14:24] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[12:14:29] <Ted Hardie> There are also bridges to slack, which can enable a larger population to use it successfully.
[12:14:30] <alex-meetecho> andrew_campling: that's going to happen in the new version... stay tuned!
[12:14:39] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: the room isn't the only thing the IETF is doing
[12:14:40] <nygren > One of the biggest values of Jabber/XMPP is as a channel for people to say things without having to get up to the mic which both helps parallelize but also helps some people with self-control.
[12:14:51] Tobia Castaldi joins the room
[12:15:01] Jiankang Yao joins the room
[12:15:02] <Alexandre Petrescu> "Alexandre Petrescu: the room isn't the only thing the IETF is doing" - yes.
[12:15:07] <Eliot Lear> @Ted Hardie bridges from what to slack?
[12:15:09] <Ted Lemon> Of course to some extent that’s also its flaw: this discussion doesn’t really get included in the consensus process.
[12:15:17] <Alexandre Petrescu> but the rooms are probably the highest of the costs.
[12:15:29] <Ben Campbell> @Elliot: xmpp
[12:15:34] <Eliot Lear> thanks ben
[12:15:37] <brong> Alexandre Petrescu: I seem to remember paying a lot less for this IETF than i did for 106
[12:16:14] <Alexandre Petrescu> Alexandre Petrescu: I seem to remember paying a lot less for this IETF than i did for 106" - yes, it is a good idea, hopefully it will continue.
[12:16:16] <brong> but ... "probably the highest cost" is an assumption for which real data exists
[12:16:26] <brong> so we could find that out rather than speculating
[12:16:28] James Galvin joins the room
[12:16:37] Allison Mankin joins the room
[12:16:40] <Alexandre Petrescu> pie charts in Plenaries maybe
[12:16:40] Mark McFadden joins the room
[12:16:53] Allison Mankin leaves the room
[12:16:53] Allison Mankin joins the room
[12:17:00] <Ted Lemon> My general experience is that the IETF meeting fee for 108 is about half as much as the next cheapest equivalent thing.
[12:17:00] <brong> pie is expensive
[12:17:05] <brong> and some of those charts have a lot of pie in them
[12:17:17] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:17:26] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:17:26] <andrew_campling> At least some of Richard's points on Jabber are addressed by using chat on Meetecho
[12:17:38] <Cullen Jennings> which ones ?
[12:17:44] <Klensin> And we don't have a "pie throwing over IP" protocol yet.
[12:17:44] <Eliot Lear> lack of account
[12:17:56] <Alexandre Petrescu> :-) pie over IP :-)
[12:17:59] Mark McFadden leaves the room
[12:18:15] <Juliana Guerra> The meta text conversation makes difficult for a not native English speaker follow the presentations
[12:18:52] <Alexandre Petrescu> (I am sorry, we need an automated translation feature, or an automated text recongnition feature, that scrolls under the slides)
[12:19:01] <andrew_campling> @Cullen - one less tool, no need for Jabber account, a maintained tool etc
[12:19:27] Andrew S leaves the room
[12:19:31] <brong> multimedia would be good - pastebins suck
[12:19:39] <Jeffrey Yasskin> The meta text conversation also interferes with this native English speaker following presentations and verbal discussion.
[12:19:54] <Carrick> +1 Cullen
[12:20:07] <RjS> https://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/shmoo/2020-07-31.html
[12:20:17] <Ted Lemon> Yeah, I had trouble finding something to put in the notes for add yesterday because there was no search.
[12:20:20] <Ted Lemon> @mic no
[12:20:28] <Ted Lemon> :)
[12:20:31] <Mike Hoye> Cullen - that was one of the things that hurt most about IRC - new participants jumped in to conversations completely cold, with no visible scrollback.
[12:20:31] <Glenn Deen> I'd like see more use of presenters pre-recording their talk ahead of the session and letting people watch it on their own schedule ahead.  Then use the session slot for discussion.  But this requires a lot of up front planning and support - for instance a place to load the videos to share.
[12:20:38] <Sam Weiler> @richard: :-(
[12:20:56] <Ted Lemon> @glenn agree
[12:21:06] <mcr> @Glenn, I'd like to see more presenters pre-record their talk, realize that they have 10x too many slides, and fix that :-)
[12:21:07] Greg Wood leaves the room
[12:21:07] <Carrick> Being able to tag replies with emojis is actually incredibly helpful
[12:21:08] <Cullen Jennings> @andrew_campling - thanks. And your point makes me reaslize I also want "reply" and reactions to messages
[12:21:12] <Jonathan Lennox> :grinning:
[12:21:12] <Ted Lemon> It also means that if you get it wrong on the first run-through, you can do it again. :)
[12:21:15] Mark McFadden joins the room
[12:21:17] <Vittorio Bertola> @Mike, @Meetecho Also if your network has a glitch and you are disconnected and then reconnected, you lose all the history in the chat window...
[12:21:22] Greg Wood joins the room
[12:21:31] <Alexandre Petrescu> threaded chats
[12:21:37] <andrew_campling> @Cullen and I forgot it also supports direct, one-to-one messaging
[12:21:41] <Carrick> +100 Alexandre
[12:21:57] <mcr> I really dislike threaded chats, but I can see their appeal in low volume projects.
[12:21:57] <Jonathan Lennox> Message editing (with marking)
[12:22:04] <Cullen Jennings> +1
[12:22:09] <Carrick> +1 Jeffrey
[12:22:12] <Ben Campbell> I couldn't hear jeffrey
[12:22:15] <Mike Hoye> Emoji reactions might be the effective substitute for the hum.
[12:22:15] <alex-meetecho> Vittorio Bertola: that will be fixed. I guess we don't ask for the chat history after a reconnection.
[12:22:16] <Mark Nottingham> +1 (no irony here)
[12:22:21] <Sam Weiler> @jeffrey: your audio level was low
[12:22:22] <Cullen Jennings> And of course I need to be able to to post good meme's
[12:22:31] <Carrick> +1 Cullen
[12:22:33] <brong> Ben Campbell: in favour of emoji reactions - they help reduce noise - that's what he said
[12:22:35] <Wes Hardaker's clone> you mean it's better than a whole bunch of +1s in a non-threaded interface?  <aol>
[12:22:35] <Meetecho> Vittorio Bertola: actually if you reconnect, you get the previous messages too (that's how Jabber works). Unless you meant previous conversations?
[12:22:37] <tale> If constrained, Mike.  The reaction lists I see on Slack are kind of insane
[12:22:38] <Michael Breuer> "did you watch the video" will be the new "did you read the draft".
[12:22:38] <Shivan Sahib> giphy for meetecho
[12:22:44] <Carrick> Wes +1
[12:22:55] <Ted Hardie> On point 2, insert PWA issues on iOS.
[12:22:56] <teirdes> so we imagine that text chats are being used to build community, will the audio queue is used to "get work done"?
[12:22:59] <Meetecho> *private converdations
[12:23:00] <Ben Campbell> @Bron: thanks
[12:23:07] Shwetha Bhandari leaves the room
[12:23:10] <Vittorio Bertola> @Meetecho it happened to me ~20 minutes ago, and currently the top message in this chat window is at 14:03
[12:23:15] <Vittorio Bertola> (CEST)
[12:23:22] <Glenn Deen> Need to be able to login simultaneously on multiple devices
[12:23:28] <Mark Nottingham> Ted, I use a number of PWAs on iOS on a daily basis. They're not perfect, but theyr'e good enough to be usable.
[12:23:31] <Dan York> threaded conversations, as was said earlier. The ability to reply to individual messages. (Such as right now, when I want to reply to comments earlier in the chat)
[12:23:31] Rich Salz joins the room
[12:23:36] Andrew S joins the room
[12:23:40] <Vittorio Bertola> Where is the requirement that it is built on open standards?
[12:23:42] Jaime Jimenez leaves the room
[12:23:43] <Jonathan Lennox> Meetecho:  I consistently don't see pre-join chat on joining
[12:23:46] <Ted Lemon> pwa?
[12:23:50] <Meetecho> Vittorio Bertola: ack, we may be keeping a shorter history even though I don't recall enforcing that, we'll check
[12:23:57] <brong> Glenn Deen: yes, definitely!  Multiple devices good
[12:24:00] Francois Ortolan leaves the room
[12:24:08] <Oliver Borchert> I amnot sure everyone was aware of Gather.Town. I for instance stumbled upon it by accident and collegues of mine did not know of it as well. Better promotion of these tools IMHO would also increase usage of it.
[12:24:11] <Ben Campbell> +1 on mobile clients. iOS support still sucks for xmpp after all these years.
[12:24:11] <Ted Hardie> @Mark Congratulations on your good fortune.
[12:24:12] <Klensin> Are we talking about designing a new protocol here and hoping that someone will support it ... or heading toward a proprietary tool, perhaps an IETF-exclusive one?
[12:24:13] <Meetecho> Jonathan Lennox: I do, but the history buffer may be limited, true
[12:24:14] <Joel Halpern> One issue with pre-recorded talks is that you can't ask questions during the talk.  You have to ask the presenter to somehow go to a particular point in his presentation, and then ask your question.  In some cases at least, being able to ask a question at the relevant point means that I will be better able to understand the later material, both because I will have the information and because the presenter can adjust what he says to reflect the issue if necessasry.
[12:24:14] <Rich Salz> progressive web app. same in browser vs app.
[12:24:40] <Ted Lemon> @joel that doesn’t seem like a hard problem.
[12:24:48] <Vittorio Bertola> I would strongly dislike using proprietary tools. We should be using an open standard with multiple implementations. Matrix, for example
[12:24:55] <Glenn Deen> @Joel - the idea is they pre-record and then they get questions at the session.
[12:25:04] <Sam Weiler> I suppose fixing our XMPP clients is off the table?
[12:25:06] <Alexandre Petrescu> while-presenting questioning: I think I can take notes and make the q at the end?
[12:25:14] <Glenn Deen> yes it means watching ahead and taking notes
[12:25:20] <Ted Lemon> we had pretty good luck doing that in add yesterday
[12:25:25] Allison Mankin leaves the room
[12:25:26] <Glenn Deen> Perhaps there could be a way to post questins to the video
[12:25:31] Allison Mankin joins the room
[12:25:32] <Ben Campbell> @John: I don't see how designing a new protocol would make people use it more than xmpp
[12:25:47] <Ben Campbell> Unless it was a new protocol for something else (e.g. federated identity)
[12:25:50] Allison Mankin leaves the room
[12:26:03] Yoshifumi Atarashi leaves the room
[12:26:04] Allison Mankin joins the room
[12:26:05] <Klensin> @Ben: agreed.
[12:26:12] Yoshifumi Atarashi joins the room
[12:26:24] <Mark Nottingham> Richard is biased against meetecho chat _elsewhere_.
[12:26:34] <Ted Lemon> xmpp is heinously complex
[12:26:36] <Simon Romano> Really?!
[12:26:36] <Alexandre Petrescu> thanks for clarifying
[12:26:48] <Carrick> +1 Ted
[12:26:51] <Klensin> just trying to find out what Richard thinks the answer is here.   IETF contracting to someone's pet company to develop a proprietary tool?
[12:27:16] <brong> it's time to bring the OpenExchange people's COI!
[12:27:19] <Sam Weiler> dogfood!
[12:27:21] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[12:27:23] <Ted Lemon> What’s the deal with Matrix chat?
[12:27:25] <Alissa> The point here is to write down functional requirements. Actual tool selection is not in scope.
[12:27:25] <brong> basically - chat using emails as the substrate
[12:27:27] <Alexandre Petrescu> they can contract who they want, but whats important for end user is who they charge for that.
[12:27:27] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[12:27:31] Mark Nottingham joins the room
[12:27:35] <nygren > Zulip might be an interesting option to explore.  It's opensource now, has good APIs (and presumably could have an xmpp interface added if it doesn't?).  We've had good luck with it.
[12:27:38] <Mark Nottingham> I really hope we can avoid yet another special, expensive tool for the IETF.
[12:27:41] <Vittorio Bertola> @brong I can't comment on that, but I would be quite happy with Matrix as well
[12:27:44] <Mike Hoye> Klensin - there are a variety of really richly-featured options available off the shelf now.
[12:27:44] <Jonathan Reed> https://github.com/zulip/zulip is an option
[12:28:01] <Avri Doria> another advantage of some of the more recent platforms is the ability to turn an active text chat into a conversation with voice and chat impromptu. and there are FOSS based tools that do work relatively well. they do have some of the features of hallway conversations.
[12:28:01] <teirdes> it might help to understand what the purpose is with providing these text tools?
[12:28:05] <Ben Campbell> email
[12:28:16] <Wes Hardaker's clone> we should use google +!!
[12:28:21] <brong> Google Wave!
[12:28:35] <Alexandre Petrescu> google had a new tool for telcos, that I forgot the name
[12:28:37] <Sam Weiler> @Wes:  IRC!
[12:28:40] <Carrick> Email is horrific
[12:28:49] <Wes Hardaker's clone> @sam: BBS!
[12:28:51] Jason Livingood joins the room
[12:28:54] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[12:28:58] <Alissa> Zulip github page says it is used by "large standards bodies" — do people know which ones?
[12:29:02] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[12:29:08] <brong> DOES IT SUPPORT IPV6????!?!?!?!?!
[12:29:10] <Bill Fenner> with 9600 bps dialup
[12:29:15] <Harald Alvestrand> RCS is the telco thing. SMS 20 years later.
[12:29:23] <Carrick> +1 Cullen
[12:29:24] <andrew_campling> It would be good to avoid tools from companies tha thave had major privacy challenges
[12:29:27] <Wes Hardaker's clone> bill: where did you get one that fast??  I only have 1200
[12:29:28] <Sam Weiler> @Alissa: not w3c, from what I know.
[12:29:30] <Mark Nottingham> +1 cullen
[12:29:35] <Carrick> +1 andrew
[12:29:37] <Bill Fenner> wes: I live in the future
[12:29:43] <Dan York> @cullen - agree we need to be clear on that.
[12:29:46] <Ben Campbell> +1 cullen
[12:29:46] <mcr> +1 on clarity on dogfood.
[12:29:48] <Chris Lemmons> It's also important that we consider what sort of agreements people have to consent to as a barrier to entry. Some of the potential options may require people to consent to certain kinds of tracking or control by entities they may not be ok with. That should be part of the conversation.
[12:29:53] <Wes Hardaker's clone> @andrew: so all companies?
[12:29:53] <Mike Hoye> "functional for us" is valuable bearing in mind that one of the goals is an inclusive, growing and diversifying definition of "us".
[12:30:09] <Alexandre Petrescu> I can suggest you the tool recommended by my company, for privacy reasons...
[12:30:21] <Rich Salz> @Jason: do we have provisions to say that IETF can't be used in advertising without permission?
[12:30:23] <andrew_campling> @Wes some ahve more (and more regular) issues than others
[12:30:36] <Jonathan Reed> @Alissa Erik or I can find out
[12:30:39] <Wes Hardaker's clone> (yes, I agree --it was just snark)
[12:30:40] <mcr> . o O ( first contact.... prime directive... Not Well! )
[12:30:40] <Vittorio Bertola> Also building an open and interconnected Internet, rather than a siloed one, should be one of the goals
[12:30:48] <andrew_campling> :-)
[12:30:52] <Alissa> great, thanks
[12:31:08] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[12:31:18] Alexa Morris_938 leaves the room
[12:31:21] Michael StJohns joins the room
[12:31:42] Jason Livingood joins the room
[12:31:44] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[12:31:44] Jason Livingood joins the room
[12:31:45] <Chris Lemmons> +100 on persistent scrollback!
[12:31:48] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[12:31:48] Jason Livingood joins the room
[12:32:01] <Glenn Deen> @Chris - make that x100
[12:32:08] <Dan York> MUST have persistent chats
[12:32:08] <brong> ^100
[12:32:11] <RjS> do we log meeting rooms and 1-1 exchanges the same way?
[12:32:14] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[12:32:20] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[12:32:23] <brong> forever
[12:32:30] <Ted Lemon> yup
[12:32:36] <Alexandre Petrescu> scrollback needed in this window or can live with the window of that URL with the log?
[12:32:38] <Adrian Farrel> It's an IETF "contribution" and needs to be available historically
[12:32:49] <nygren > +1 to forever
[12:32:51] <Klensin> @Vittorio: but that puts us against the decades-old tradeoff between "everyone uses the same centralized system" (even if it is a cloud-based on with distributed servers) and distributed functionality at... umm ... the edges
[12:32:51] <Mike Hoye> Note that one thing we have learned at Mozilla, at significant human cost, is thata code of conduct and effective enforcement is a critical accessibility tool. People cannot participate equally in forums where they are unequally at risk, or feel unequally  threatened.
[12:32:53] <Sam Weiler> earlier someone suggested "editable, with edits logged".  I like editable.  
[12:33:00] Peter Feil leaves the room
[12:33:04] <Sam Weiler> it lets me fix my typos.  :-)
[12:33:12] <Chris Lemmons> One of my open communities switched from IRC with no scrollback to a service that has persistent scrollback. It made a world of difference in my ability to participate, especially in a conversation that may have happened during what was overnight for me.
[12:33:13] <Daniel Migault> +1 emails seems to do what we need.
[12:33:16] <Jeffrey Yasskin> +1 Mike
[12:33:19] <Toerless Eckert> @ben_campbell: +1
[12:33:36] <Wes Hardaker's clone> we need a chat to email gateway service
[12:33:38] <Jay Daley> @Rich use of the logo is controlled by the Trust, our contracts control how contractors can use our name  but there's nothing regarding general use of our name that I'm aware of (though I may be wrong)
[12:33:42] Peter Feil joins the room
[12:33:42] <tale> That's why I frequently request for people to put things in writing.
[12:33:43] <Carrick> Email is so disorganized as to almost be unusable
[12:33:46] <sureshk@jabber.org> Will cut off MIC line now
[12:33:47] <brong> yeah, exactly the same!  It's the main thing moving off IRC gave me
[12:33:52] <Glenn Deen> I use outlook for email (chosen by work) that autodeletes mail after 60 days
[12:33:58] <Klensin> @ben: +1 (except you don't qualify for "dinosaur")
[12:34:00] <brong> Carrick: with good search email is fine
[12:34:04] <sureshk@jabber.org> Want a few minutes at the end to ask for draft volunteers
[12:34:04] <Carrick> Email is good for some things, but chat is good for other things. They're different media.
[12:34:11] <Wes Hardaker's clone> @carrick: a really good mail reader with threading is needed with a filter on receipt into folders is the only way to live in the ietf
[12:34:13] Erik Nygren leaves the room
[12:34:15] <brong> https://ietf.topicbox-scratch.com/
[12:34:17] Erik Nygren joins the room
[12:34:17] <brong> :p
[12:34:20] <tale> The archival aspect is significant.   Email remembers things much better than my brain does.
[12:34:29] <Carrick> Wes: yes, I have those things, but even then, it leaves a lot to be desired
[12:34:30] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[12:34:33] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[12:34:34] <Jeffrey Yasskin> Richard doesn't seem to have "bots" in his list of requirements, but the W3C's Zakim helps a lot with integrating IRC with meetings.
[12:34:36] <Cullen Jennings> I often use jabber logs. One thing is to find the right place to start listening to a meeting recording
[12:34:43] <brong> I have a long blog post about how email is your electronic memory
[12:34:59] <mcr> url?
[12:35:01] <brong> back when Fastmail had an XMPP server, it could be configured to copy your chat history into emails
[12:35:13] Tsunekazu Saito joins the room
[12:35:20] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[12:35:23] Vittorio Bertola joins the room
[12:35:24] <tale> brong, I do basically the same thing with putting all my text messages into Gmail
[12:35:29] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[12:35:33] Juliana Guerra joins the room
[12:35:36] <Klensin> And, speaking as someone with real dinosaur credentials, I still content that discussion of substantive topics benefits from reading, thinking, and then responding rather than the fast turnaround and responses of chat systems.
[12:35:53] <tale> ^ +1
[12:35:54] <Dan York> Good question by Robert
[12:35:59] <Chris Lemmons> Also +1 on infinite archive. I expect that anything I contribute publicly will be publicly searchable forever. It's often very useful to go back and figure out why a decision was made, not just what the decision was.
[12:35:59] mnot joins the room
[12:36:08] <Ted Lemon> I think that it’s the same for 1:1 sidebars unless there’s explicit agreement from all participants not to record
[12:36:12] <tale> or :ink_squid_smiling: I guess, if we had reactions
[12:36:13] <mnot> +1 Robert
[12:36:15] <Jay Daley> integration as whole (bots, bridges, apps) is key feature of many modern chat systems
[12:36:18] <Ted Lemon> Otherwise there are legal issues
[12:36:21] Tsunekazu Saito leaves the room
[12:36:42] <Ben Campbell> Is there a need for the opposite? "MUST NOT be retained, even by individual clients"?
[12:36:42] <mcr> if we archive 1:1, then do participants have the ability to find out people's stable long term identity so that we can reach out 1:1?
[12:36:56] <tale> Agree, Chris, that historical context is very important to me
[12:37:04] <Rich Salz> if we do want perpetual archiving, we need to make that explicit in the chat feature
[12:37:18] <brong> this is why I like chat logs to be converted to emails and sent to the participants (or a list)
[12:37:23] francesca joins the room
[12:37:36] <tale> Maybe not, mcr, but to me that's a nice to have not a requirement
[12:37:36] <Toerless Eckert> @rich: we do perpetual jabbe r room archive afaik. do we explicitly note that ?
[12:37:37] <Carrick> brong: !
[12:37:40] <brong> then retention can be done by participants, and for things that belong to groups - they are archived with the list!
[12:37:50] <Ted Lemon> IETF doesn’t protect anonymity.
[12:37:50] <Sam Weiler> this list does not include the contractal/agreement/terms requirements that were raised in jabber today, and I think those may conflict with the assumption in this slide about buying a "service"
[12:37:55] <Ted Lemon> Otherwise the Note Well fails
[12:37:57] <mcr> I am very concerned with "buying something and configuring something", because I think that it will force me to use a specific (web?) client with a closed user interface. Closed so that everyone gets a "consistent" experience, in-equitable, because the interface does not adapt to local needs.
[12:37:57] <Alexandre Petrescu> Google tool is missing from the list
[12:37:58] <andrew_campling> On operability, sourcing it surely depends whether anything is availabilt that meets the essential requirements
[12:38:04] <Alexandre Petrescu> I heard of an ORacle tool as well
[12:38:08] <Klensin> Much of what Richard is saying sounds to me like "IETF just got more expensive so we need more staff, more contractors, and higher registratin fees.
[12:38:24] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:38:28] francesca leaves the room
[12:38:31] <Rich Salz> I think we need to be very explicit (like, in the chat room banner) that it's arcvhied. As we grow to new participants, their norm might not be "this is just like email"
[12:38:32] <mnot> I'm a bit concerned that logging all chat will make people assume that something said there has been circulated in the community — giving me one more think I need to track. Keeping it ephemeral means I can miss some and it's not critical.
[12:38:36] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:38:38] <Simon Romano> Wouldn't the right venue for this discussion be dispatch rather than shmoo? Asking just out of curiosity :face_with_monocle:..
[12:38:40] <brong> Klensin: not so much to run a Matrix tool rather than a Jabber tool, or to run our own Zulip server
[12:38:58] <Mallory Knodel> +1 mnot
[12:39:02] <Alissa> @Simon SHMOO is chartered to document functional requirements for remote meeting technology
[12:39:09] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:39:16] Tero Kivinen joins the room
[12:39:21] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[12:39:21] Ted Lemon joins the room
[12:39:22] Jordi Palet Martinez leaves the room
[12:39:35] Jordi Palet Martinez joins the room
[12:39:37] <Toerless Eckert> any of these tools that is naturally federated ?
[12:39:42] <Toerless Eckert> that was my question.
[12:39:49] <Alexandre Petrescu> federated?
[12:39:53] <Toerless Eckert> like jabber
[12:39:54] <Rich Salz> "continue in the slack chat"  BIG SIGH
[12:39:54] <Michael Breuer> matrix is federated
[12:39:56] <teirdes> emailing lists are the authoritative source of ietf feedback as far as i've been told and read
[12:39:57] <Mike Hoye> I'm also happy to answer questions about this over email, and I'm hanging out on the IETF Slack.
[12:39:59] <Simon Romano> @Alissa sure. I was asking since I believe this might be useful also for in-presence meetings.
[12:40:00] Markus leaves the room
[12:40:01] <Chris Lemmons> mnot: That's actually a good point. I know that for Apache stuff, there are certain kinds of decisions that are only allowed to be made on the list, but the presence of the chat sometimes means that if you don't follow the chat, you can miss important context to those decisions.
[12:40:01] <teirdes> will look up the actual reference on that
[12:40:02] <Toerless Eckert> @michael: thanks
[12:40:14] <Klensin> @Bron: I was thinking about archives, search mechanisms, registration machinery under our control (even if tied to the datatracker), ....
[12:40:15] <Carrick> Why is federation important?
[12:40:17] <Rich Salz> i'm interested in volunteering
[12:40:18] <Alexandre Petrescu> type in chat box
[12:40:25] <Mallory Knodel> I'll author a draft on async, time-bound email meetings.
[12:40:27] Simon Leinen leaves the room
[12:40:34] <Alexandre Petrescu> I volunteer for the list of tools
[12:40:34] <brong> Klensin: this is why I like extract and convert into email!
[12:40:37] Adrian Farrel leaves the room
[12:40:41] Peter Feil leaves the room
[12:40:42] <Charles Eckel> I will right up something covering the hackathon
[12:40:46] <Charles Eckel> write
[12:40:46] Allison Mankin leaves the room
[12:40:50] <Ted Lemon> I’d like to do a draft on async meetings too, not so sure about email
[12:40:52] <Klensin> My understanding was that we dropped having an IETF jabber server on which IETF people could register for just those reasons.
[12:40:53] <Mirja Kühlewind> @rich I'll send you an email!
[12:41:01] <teirdes> ted and mallory maybe you can coordinate?
[12:41:08] <Ted Lemon> seems like a good idea. :)
[12:41:09] Jeffrey Yasskin leaves the room
[12:41:29] <Jonathan Reed> I'd be happy to help out Rich too
[12:41:30] John Border leaves the room
[12:41:33] <Klensin> @Bron: Yes, strongly agree with that.
[12:41:35] Mark McFadden leaves the room
[12:41:37] Peter Koch leaves the room
[12:41:43] Stewart Bryant leaves the room
[12:41:44] <Alexandre Petrescu> thanks for SHMOO mtg
[12:41:51] Tim Chown leaves the room
[12:41:52] Valery Smyslov leaves the room
[12:41:55] <Mike Hoye> Thank you, everyone.
[12:41:56] Juliana Guerra leaves the room
[12:41:58] <Mallory Knodel> ok! :)
[12:42:03] Jerome Vacek leaves the room
[12:42:04] Cathy Aronson leaves the room
[12:42:05] <Mirja Kühlewind> @rich your were volunteering for a meeting fees draft, right?
[12:42:09] Mark Nottingham leaves the room
[12:42:10] Mike Bishop leaves the room
[12:42:11] Michael StJohns leaves the room
[12:42:15] Shivan Sahib leaves the room
[12:42:18] Matthew Miller leaves the room
[12:42:18] <Mallory Knodel> glad shmoo is a thing. thanks chairs!
[12:42:19] Einar Bohlin leaves the room
[12:42:22] Ben Campbell leaves the room
[12:42:23] Vittorio Bertola leaves the room
[12:42:23] Mallory Knodel leaves the room
[12:42:23] Charles Eckel leaves the room
[12:42:24] Andrew S leaves the room
[12:42:25] <Ted Lemon> :)
[12:42:25] Avri Doria leaves the room
[12:42:26] <Rich Salz> stay safe and healthy
[12:42:27] Greg Wood leaves the room
[12:42:28] Cullen Jennings_365 leaves the room
[12:42:28] Dhruv Dhody leaves the room
[12:42:28] Bill Fenner leaves the room
[12:42:28] Jonathan Reed leaves the room
[12:42:29] <andrew_campling> I'm happy to help too
[12:42:30] <Mirja Kühlewind> and Jonathan well right?
[12:42:30] Wes Hardaker leaves the room
[12:42:30] Joel Halpern leaves the room
[12:42:30] Stephen McQuistin leaves the room
[12:42:30] Peter Yee leaves the room
[12:42:31] Karen Moreland leaves the room
[12:42:31] Samuel Weiler leaves the room
[12:42:32] Yoshifumi Atarashi leaves the room
[12:42:32] Jay Daley leaves the room
[12:42:32] Alexandre Petrescu leaves the room
[12:42:32] Simon Romano leaves the room
[12:42:33] <Dan York> Thanks all
[12:42:33] Ted Lemon leaves the room
[12:42:33] Kris Shrishak leaves the room
[12:42:33] Chris Box leaves the room
[12:42:34] Toerless Eckert leaves the room
[12:42:34] Jason Livingood leaves the room
[12:42:35] Rich Salz leaves the room
[12:42:35] Rüdiger Volk leaves the room
[12:42:36] Andrew Campling leaves the room
[12:42:36] Kazunori Fujiwara leaves the room
[12:42:37] Robert Sparks leaves the room
[12:42:37] Peter Van Roste leaves the room
[12:42:37] <Chris Lemmons> Thanks, all.
[12:42:37] <brong> Thanks!
[12:42:38] Ted Hardie leaves the room
[12:42:38] Jonathan Lennox leaves the room
[12:42:39] Tero Kivinen leaves the room
[12:42:39] Carrick leaves the room
[12:42:40] Suzanne Woolf leaves the room
[12:42:40] Wes Hardaker's clone leaves the room
[12:42:41] Glenn Deen leaves the room
[12:42:42] James Galvin leaves the room
[12:42:43] Chris Lemmons leaves the room
[12:42:43] Alissa Cooper leaves the room
[12:42:43] Takahiro Nemoto leaves the room
[12:42:45] andrew_campling leaves the room
[12:42:45] <Suresh Krishnan> Thanks All!!
[12:42:48] Alvaro Retana leaves the room
[12:42:48] Oliver Borchert leaves the room
[12:42:51] Jordi Palet Martinez leaves the room
[12:42:52] Eliot Lear leaves the room
[12:42:52] Monika Ermert leaves the room
[12:42:52] Henrik Levkowetz leaves the room
[12:42:52] Michael Richardson leaves the room
[12:42:52] John Klensin leaves the room
[12:42:52] Mike Hoye leaves the room
[12:42:52] Bernie Hoeneisen leaves the room
[12:42:52] Harald Alvestrand leaves the room
[12:42:52] Murugiah Souppaya leaves the room
[12:42:52] Chris Wendt leaves the room
[12:42:52] Sean Croghan leaves the room
[12:42:52] Michael Breuer leaves the room
[12:42:52] Suresh Krishnan leaves the room
[12:42:52] Murray Kucherawy leaves the room
[12:42:52] Rick Alfvin leaves the room
[12:42:52] Daniel Migault leaves the room
[12:42:52] tale leaves the room
[12:42:52] Andrew Malis leaves the room
[12:42:52] Richard Barnes leaves the room
[12:42:52] Amelia Andersdotter leaves the room
[12:42:52] Richard Scheffenegger leaves the room
[12:42:52] Erik Nygren leaves the room
[12:42:52] Bron Gondwana leaves the room
[12:42:52] Dan York leaves the room
[12:42:52] Tobia Castaldi leaves the room
[12:42:52] Jiankang Yao leaves the room
[12:42:52] Sanjay Mishra leaves the room
[12:42:52] Alessandro Amirante leaves the room
[12:42:52] Mirja Kühlewind leaves the room
[12:42:52] Mike Boyle leaves the room
[12:43:05] mnot leaves the room
[12:44:09] Cullen Jennings leaves the room
[12:44:13] Meetecho leaves the room
[12:44:59] dhruvdhody leaves the room
[12:45:20] alex-meetecho leaves the room
[12:46:22] nygren leaves the room
[12:46:45] brong leaves the room
[12:51:33] RjS leaves the room
[12:51:41] kmoreland@amsl.com leaves the room
[12:51:55] Klensin leaves the room
[12:52:16] m&m leaves the room
[12:53:18] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[12:53:50] avezza leaves the room
[12:55:41] Sam Weiler joins the room
[13:01:25] Greg Wood (IETF LLC) leaves the room
[13:02:19] Alissa leaves the room
[13:02:21] Alissa joins the room
[13:10:33] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[13:10:41] Alexa Morris joins the room
[13:10:44] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[13:10:47] Alexa Morris joins the room
[13:14:32] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[14:00:49] sureshk@jabber.org leaves the room
[14:03:36] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[14:04:00] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[14:06:33] Sam Weiler joins the room
[14:26:31] Alissa joins the room
[14:38:51] Alissa leaves the room
[15:09:18] Pete Resnick (the other one) leaves the room
[16:00:51] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[16:17:40] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[16:18:30] jmagallanes leaves the room
[16:26:48] jmagallanes joins the room
[16:28:28] jmagallanes leaves the room
[16:32:52] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[16:33:52] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[16:58:23] Alexa Morris leaves the room
[17:04:23] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[17:18:29] Sam Weiler joins the room
[17:34:23] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[17:44:22] sureshk@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:00:54] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[18:01:23] sureshk@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:13:22] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[18:19:38] ekr@jabber.org joins the room
[18:36:18] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[18:37:21] Alissa joins the room
[18:37:23] Alissa leaves the room
[18:48:23] ekr@jabber.org leaves the room
[18:54:58] Sam Weiler joins the room
[19:02:00] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[19:08:59] Sam Weiler joins the room
[19:09:01] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[19:09:05] Sam Weiler joins the room
[19:12:24] Alissa leaves the room
[19:33:57] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[19:46:30] mcr leaves the room
[20:00:25] Sam Weiler joins the room
[20:00:25] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[20:00:36] Sam Weiler joins the room
[21:50:25] sureshk@jabber.org leaves the room
[22:20:08] Sam Weiler leaves the room
[23:07:57] sureshk@jabber.org joins the room
[23:20:56] sureshk@jabber.org leaves the room