Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

There are two issues:

 1. How are new concerns developed/discussed?
 2. How do we manage the conversation so that it comes to a productive
    outcome?

The ietf list works ok for (1) but generally poorly for (2).

And so what to do about (2)?  My proposal was an attempt to address that 
by having someone organize a discussion a bit, and have people prepare 
for that, with an eye toward SOME outcome.

Let's take a complaint about the IESG from someone who says that there 
are currently no people with on the IESG that have good skills at polo, 
and can we have a conversation about qualifications and where to get 
good horses. Some people take different directions, and argue that the 
underlying issue is a dearth of scuba divers, and the conversation goes 
on for a while, and nothing happens, and our IESG remains woefully 
unprepared for the next polo match.

First of all, was that the optimal outcome?  With the given example, 
quite possibly so, since we don't need IESG members who play polo or 
scuba dive.

But supposing the issue was around three party communication models and 
their interactions between security, application, and Internet layers, 
and the impact was around 1st responders?  Now what would you like to 
have happen?  Especially if there are passionate views?  Who is prepared 
to engage in an informed way?  What IETF processes should be used?

With an outcome comes a next step and hopefully a cessation of the 
discussion on the ietf list; unless and until that next step has led to 
some sort of dead end.

Eliot


On 30.07.21 16:23, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> Keith and Dan have made me re-think my posting, and I was wrong. An 
> open mic is really like the price of an open organization.  Thanks.
>
> (Ironic since I’ve said that exact same thing more than once when 
> people put up proposals to make “ietf@ietf” more useful. :)
>
>