Re: [112attendees] Plenary last week - missed

[Alexandre PETRESCU <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Mirja,

There might be a misunderstanding on my part

Le 09/11/2021 à 22:39, Mirja Kuehlewind a écrit :
>
> 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.
>

That is discussion, it is a Work in Progress.   I will read the 
discussion in the draft.

I wonder whether it makes sense to provide feedback to that discussion.

Should we improve the draft when the decision makign is already 
happenning elsewhere?

Is the draft guiding the implemenntation or is the implementation done 
elsewhere and the draft just follows the implementation? ('rubber 
stamping').

That is my misunderstanding.


> When we publish this draft with IETF consensus this would be great 
> because it would provide more clear community guidance to the IESG.
>

Again, my misunderstanding is the following: I thought the shmoo WG 
would work like all other WGs; if the WG said there would be that kind 
of online meeting, then that would happen that way.  WG consensus would 
work as usual in support of making an I-D into an RFC with votes and 
consensus.

But it seems that the way in which online meetings happen are not 
necessarily designed by a WG consensus decision making, be that shmoo WG 
or other WG that I might not be aware of.  It seems that what the shmoo 
WG does is just being consulted.

That might mean, among other things, that the already produced RFC of 
shmoo WG (the filename with 'cancel' in it, that I dont like to spell 
fully) is also a document that is not to be taken too much seriously, 
but just an indication, a consultation result, to IESG.  There was 
consensus based decision making within the WG, but does the IESG take 
that RFC as a guide, or just a consultation result?  I think it is the 
latter.

One might wonder whether these kinds of consultations or informal 
indications to IESG need to be set in stone in RFCs, or are they more 
like poll results at which surveymonkey-like tools might be better.


> 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
>

Run a survey followed by list discussions, and then a leader makes a 
decision.  No need of heavy long consensus-based decision making like 
WGs and RFCs.

That is what happens, right?


> 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.
>

Yes, experiments are the subject of EXPERIMENTAL RFCs.


> 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/
>

Thanks,  it says 1295 participants.    It is a high number which is great.

But only a fourth of them at the Plenary (350 said Toerless?) makes it 
that  probably a Plenary is a misnomer.  In a Plenary almost everybody 
should be there, almost, or so.


> - 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
>

I browsed through the slides, they dont say anything about in-person or 
not, in March.   But that's ok, I will not push for it.  I will scan the 
various email lists to see when that gets announced and where.


> - 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]>
>

It's good to know there is an open address to send questions to.

Alex


> 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
>
>
>
>