Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication

Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch> Thu, 29 July 2021 14:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@lear.ch>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73DEC3A2452 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=lear.ch
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 62-2_V_fYKGw for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (upstairs.ofcourseimright.com [185.32.222.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F103A2454 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Jul 2021 07:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011::6] ([IPv6:2001:420:c0c0:1011:0:0:0:6]) (authenticated bits=0) by upstairs.ofcourseimright.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-18) with ESMTPSA id 16TELHj2091118 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:21:17 +0200
Authentication-Results: upstairs.ofcourseimright.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lear.ch
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=lear.ch; s=upstairs; t=1627568477; bh=haLNJ0JqoN9rlkywrFEiHRQnnybKPOrvIqyuFS+BbLo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CzhDnOOqKx5wbQP6aJzwcveHQalTKr4SuaHI9HMr5VmnyTZjrHKHNILveByRvZGdb N83+5hQyW0pFrNlxtSYfFhZd9ByrIDeuXpd6AdUVNG1jCZ5PTlUg4ZduS+Jm/CEKWF RaFjBKS5vqq8jAqtDB71Uglr5qFntVePiZiYB1w4=
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "gendispatch@ietf.org" <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>
References: <ee2a840d-1837-1e06-647e-1251295c94bb@lear.ch> <D011C9BF-3FFB-4A61-A9CE-C449DF4296B2@akamai.com>
From: Eliot Lear <lear@lear.ch>
Message-ID: <8d5bee10-2cc7-ac91-505e-5634cbcaabbe@lear.ch>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 16:21:16 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D011C9BF-3FFB-4A61-A9CE-C449DF4296B2@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1gxKz3FUGQdK9oIxTugnCHAD6BG1sq2Qo"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/r17j6Zvf-O8NMqAY8JmTJN-4TmE>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2021 14:21:30 -0000

Thanks, Rich.  Mostly I was thinking more about how the old ietf list 
function should evolve.  What if we want to have plenary discussions in 
between big meetings?  What I outlined might feel to some almost like a 
thematic workshop, but with an open invitation to participate.

On 29.07.21 16:12, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> I think the biggest problem with previous plenaries is that it is too 
> easy for the general public to get on a soapbox, er the microphone line.
>
> I think think that the plenary that happened a 12 hours ago, as well 
> as the other “remote only” ones, went much better. I attribute it to 
> the fact that getting up to speak was much harder, but maybe there’s 
> another reason.
>
>