Re: [105attendees] Plenary & RSE - Maximize Value of Discussion

John C Klensin <> Wed, 24 July 2019 15:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 165A91203B7; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:25:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yTDsxSUPliD1; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0980712039C; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 08:25:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=JcK-T100) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1hqJ92-0009Bx-7v; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:25:32 -0400
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 11:25:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: "Livingood, Jason" <>,,, IAB <>, The IESG <>
Message-ID: <4B4F7DE7812DC885A2D94836@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: ::1
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [105attendees] Plenary & RSE - Maximize Value of Discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list of all 105 attendees for official communication <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 15:25:37 -0000

--On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 14:03 +0000 "Livingood, Jason"
<> wrote:

> (LLC hat off – personal opinion)
> Many opinions and views have already been expressed on the
> mailing list in the past several weeks. In my personal view,
> the 'what' and 'why' has been explored and discussed
> extensively. I don't think rehashing that will bring much
> value to the community, momentarily satisfying though it may
> seem. 


Both from my own perspective and from observing the mailing list
discussions, I think there is a key difference between the
discussions of  this topic cluster and many issues that have
been discussed at similar or equal length on the mailing list.
That is that a number of critical questions have been asked and
asked repeatedly and never really answered.  I hope and presume
that is at least mostly because the questioners and those being
asked have never quite understood each other about the questions
and/or how the answers related to them.  We've also seen
extended email threads in which misunderstandings continue and
get amplified rather than disappear; possibly this has been an
example.  For such situations, I don't know any substitute for a
good interactive discussion in which artificial constraints are

That is also important to your suggestion as to how to move
forward because at least some of the questions about what
happened and why are key to figuring out what should be done
next and who should do it.   Even if we take the recent notes
and the draft SOW as given, a better mutual understanding is
critical to answering some of the questions Ted posed in his