Re: [arch-d] [Chirp] on the nature of architecture discussion

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 08:50:17AM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >> I am complaining about the absence of a recurring, IAB organized
> >> architecture-discuss/dispatch meeting slot at IETF meetings.
> 
> I don't think you should place any reliance on "meetings" in the traditional
> sense for the coming few years.

Just because i am trying to be more positive about a victory over corona
doesn't mean i would not also like to use this sad opportunity for
the community to work out better ways to leverage virtual meetings.

> Whether the sort of thing you want can
> happen in on-line meetings is less clear to me, since on-line meetings
> require floor-control, which is not what you want in any sort of
> wide-ranging blue-sky discussion.

I don't think this particular topics issues are any different than
those of other tracks. The need for floor control is independent
of whether you are on-line or physcially in a room. It purely depends on the
number of passionate participants and the degree of passion about
the topic. Typically we have these actual discussions mostly in
official/inofficial side-meetings these days, typically through the
absence of powerpoint.

Not commenting on the technical aspects of the on-line meeting
aspects, thats better done on manycouches@ietf.org.

> <snip>
> 
> On 03-Apr-20 08:14, Melinda Shore wrote:
> 
> > FWIW, many years ago we had these discussions in the technical
> > plenaries.  They were, as a rule, unproductive, which may be why
> > they have fallen by the wayside.
> > 
> > I'm curious to know what you think would change if there were
> > structured general architectural discussions.
> 
> I think that the most important architectural documents have generally
> originated from inspired individuals, not from structured discussions.
> 
> Examples (intentionally ancient): 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc871
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc875

Yes, what would today likely be individual submission track is always
a good option to consider. Not sure how much more hurdles would be
in a way to do the same today. Certainly a lot more than what it did
to publish an acuel, true to the name "Request For Comment" back then.

Cheers
    Toerless
> 
>     Brian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> Architecture-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

-- 
---
tte@cs.fau.de