Re: [Coin] Cancelling the COINRG meeting at IETF113

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