Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113

sorry, but you are wrong.

> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 08:35:16AM +0000, Schooler, Eve M wrote:
> > As for transparency…If you are a regular reader of this list, then it 
> is painfully obvious that there has been quite a bit of divisiveness 
> happening both on and off the list. As chairs, given the state of the 
> agenda and the tone of the dialog, we felt the need to take a step back 
> from the vitriol and simply take a deep breath to regroup.
> 
> I am sorry to hear that you feel that way. But you can imagine that
> anybody who might feel addressed by your "vitriol" would not be happy 
> about that
> name calling either. I for once don't that anybody did spill vitriol, and 
> especially
> if you think i did, then i would very much appreciate if you would call 
> such
> a perception out, for example in private mail, before making it lead to 
> such
> choices for the RG.
> 
> I am also not sure where there would be divisiveness in the community 
> wrt. COIN work.
> As i said, with a charter as openly written, there is a lot of freedom to 
> put
> work items in or out of scope, and the chairs did attempt to define a line
> what was in and out. In response, i was suggesting a technical 
> presentation
> that was intended to describe the intricate dependencies between what was
> declared to be in and what was maybe? declared out (not to dissimilar to 
> what IMHO
> the use-case draft has), but with use-case examples focussed on what i 
> think
> we would call semantic addressing. To help continue that 
> technical/research discussion.
> 
> In any case, it would be nice to understand if/when you would make a 
> decision
> whether to accept my proposal for a presentation based on the outline i 
> sent.
> 
> Cheers
>     Toerless
> 
> > We certainly have valued the continued involvement of the COIN 
> community, which has made many of the discussions vibrant and rewarding.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Eve
> >
> > From: Coin <coin-bounces@irtf.org> On Behalf Of Dirk Trossen
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2022 10:30 PM
> > To: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>; coin <coin@irtf.org>
> > Cc: coinrg-chairs <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113
> >
> > Hi J/E/M, all,
> >
> > Now that’s a surprise, not just in content but also in style since 
> the RG community lacks the transparency of this decision.
> >
> > As a COIN RG member myself for now more than 3 years (spanning two 
> organizations), I had looked forward to discussing at least three 
> activities in which I am involved in, namely the (i) use case advances 
> (trying to formulate and categorize the pertinent research questions in a 
> number of COIN areas), (ii) the applicability of SDN for routing (i.e. 
> the use of DP programmability for realizing novel routing solutions, 
> which according to the chairs is in scope of COIN), and (iii) a 
> discussion on how COIN could help improve on DLT realizations; all 
> activities resulting from research on topics I see as relevant to and 
> within COIN.
> >
> > So this gives already three agenda items from where I’m coming from 
> (depending on willingness for time allocation, between about 45 to 60mins 
> on an agenda in my mind) but yet we are told at ‘we cannot put a good 
> agenda together’. Is there nothing beyond these items, really, and/or 
> is this a judgement of those items in quality (I would expect good 
> discussions on them but maybe it is just me)?
> >
> > So I’m disappointed but also shocked by this style of simply 
> cancelling the RG meeting with that (too) thin ‘we cannot put a good 
> agenda together for IETF113’ explanation. I cannot and do not see the 
> reasoning behind it albeit I may speculate but I am not a friend of those 
> second guesses.
> >
> > Hence, I would ask the community here: what discussions were we looking 
> forward to have? Are those good enough to discuss regardless of the RG 
> meeting being cancelled? If there is no RG meeting for whatever reason, 
> maybe we can simply come together among those interested in those 
> discussions and have them regardless, such as in a side meeting of the 
> ‘COIN community’ (not the RG)?
> >
> > From my side, I would be highly interested in that since I have valued 
> the COIN discussions over the past years and don’t want to let go of 
> this for reasons that are just not well enough explained below.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dirk
> >
> > From: Coin [mailto:coin-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marie-Jose 
> Montpetit
> > Sent: 11 March 2022 00:45
> > To: coin <coin@irtf.org<mailto:coin@irtf.org>>
> > Cc: coinrg-chairs 
> <coinrg-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:coinrg-chairs@ietf.org>>
> > Subject: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113
> >
> > Dear all:
> >
> > Because of many converging issues, delays and (non) availability of 
> invited researchers and papers we cannot put a good agenda together for 
> IETF113.  Hence we are cancelling the meeting.
> >
> > We plan to re-group, consult the community and plan for 114.
> >
> > Discussions on the use cases and other important COIN topics will have 
> to continue or be initiated on the list for now. Of course as the 
> co-author of a draft that was going to be presented I am disappointed.
> >
> > The co-chairs are in full agreement that this is the right decision at 
> this point and the IRTF leadership has been kept in the loop.
> >
> > J/E/M
> >
> > Marie-José Montpetit, Ph.D.
> > marie@mjmontpetit.com<mailto:marie@mjmontpetit.com>
> >
> >
> 
> > --
> > Coin mailing list
> > Coin@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 
> 
> --
> ---
> tte@cs.fau.de
> 
> --
> Coin mailing list
> Coin@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/coin
> 