Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

please see inline.

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
Organisation: CEA
Date: Tuesday, 9. November 2021 at 21:15
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed


Hi, Mirja,

Thanks for the reply.

It is good to reach the community to the best possible ways, and for my part I would like to more carefully pay attention to the IETF Announce email list to be reached.

That’s great.

However, there is a  discrepancy in one point: we discuss online meetings in shmoo WG.  There is not one sign about 2-weeks online IETF meetings or of Plenary dissociated from the WGs.  That means that whatever we discuss in shmoo has no relevance to IETF - it looks like an exercise in discussion of online meetings whereas the actual decisions about IETF online meetings are made elsewhere.

I actually brought this idea up in the IESG and this idea originated based on the discussion we had at the shmoo meeting during the last IETF meeting. As I replied on the shmoo/manycouches list to your request, there is also a bit of discussion in the latest draft that is also based on the discussion we had at the last meeting. When we publish this draft with IETF consensus this would be great because it would provide more clear community guidance to the IESG. Without this established community guidelines, the IESG tries its best to assess feedback from the community. The plenary change was particularly set up as an experiment with the goal to evaluate based on community feedback after the meeting and explicit evaluation criteria (see here https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/RwtWwcaSYg0QMpvTW5kdTTYtQpY/). I think it makes sense to try new things and try to use any potentially opportunities that this situation might bring.

That said, some of the reasons I wanted to attend the Plenary are:

- how many people attended IETF this time?  Can they know that before the WG week?

Please see here: https://registration.ietf.org/112/participants/remote/

- will there be March in-person meeting?  Or not?

The LLC and Executive Director will provide further information about this soon.

For the plenary info see here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/112/materials/slides-112-ietf-sessa-ietf-112-ietf-llc-briefing-01

- in case of in-person part in March, are there plans around considering offering guarantees of non-spread?  Are there uniformizing directions towards common ways of characterizing the anti-covid proection, apps, etc?
Please direct your questions at the LLC Board (by email): [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Mirja



But then again, maybe it makes no sense to discuss them, knowing that the decision making is somewhere else.

Alex
Le 09/11/2021 à 19:09, Mirja Kuehlewind a écrit :
Hi Alex,

sorry that you missed it. We are working on improved way to reach the community. I think that is an important issue.

At least there is the recording: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ml55Tl9lY

Mirja



From: 112attendees <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]> on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Organisation: CEA
Date: Tuesday, 9. November 2021 at 18:43
To: "[e-mail]"<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]><mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed


I missed the Plenary last week, because I didnt expect it there.

This time IETF meeting is so strange.  It spans two weeks time with importnat things in the first week, including the Plenary, but the WG meetings are in the second week.

All these discussions we had in shmoo WG about online or not online and I did not see any sign about Plenary being in the first week.

All these discussions about which 3-4 time slots are best around the world, which UTC ways to refer to them, etc, and I missed the Plenary.

Sigh...

Alex