Re: [Gendispatch] some thoughts about ietf communication

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 29.07.21 18:12, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 9:02 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Joel,
>
>     > On Jul 29, 2021, at 8:14 AM, Joel M. Halpern
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>     >
>     > I may be misreading this, but it seems that it misses one
>     important purpose for the plenary.
>     >
>     > Sometimes, the community has concerns that need to be expressed,
>     whether the leadership thinks the issue is important or not.  That
>     is why, even though it is usually vacuous, I consider the open mic
>     portion of the plenary to be important.
>
>     I agree.  One very important purpose of the plenary is for the
>     community to speak to our leadership and for them to listen.
>
>
> I 100% agree. While it might be worth thinking about how to make that 
> part more productive, it seems to me to be the one non-optional part.


So do I.  As I wrote in the proposal, there is a bit of a chicken and 
egg problem here.  I just view that as something to work on

Eliot

>
> -Ekr
>
>     Bob
>
>
>     >
>     > Also, sometimes it is important to air and compare perspectives
>     on an issue (particularly in the4 above category) even if we do
>     not know what a reasonable result could be, and can not arrive at
>     a reasonable outcome during that time.
>     >
>     > I do not see how that would fit with what you have below.
>     >
>     > Yours,
>     > Joel
>     >
>     > On 7/29/2021 5:45 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>     >> Hi,
>     >> As one of the people who think that the plenary function of the
>     IETF needs a more serious rethink, I thought I would put this out
>     to the gendispatch list and see what people think.  At the end of
>     the day, I am aiming for an experiment, and might write this or
>     something else up in a draft with others, if others are interested
>     in this or some alternative to this (cough, Pete).  If nobody else
>     is interested, or lots of people think that trying something new
>     for plenary communication is A Bad Idea, this discussion will be
>     the last you hear from me on it.  But what is written below is
>     meant as a starting point, not an endpoint.
>     >> FWIW, and with apologies to Joel and others, I've a copy of the
>     below in Github at https://github.com/elear/ietf-plen/tree/main
>     <https://github.com/elear/ietf-plen/tree/main>. Mostly so that all
>     the below can be modified, substituted, etc, and later turned into
>     a draft if there is interest.
>     >> The Principles
>     >>  * Plenary communication is expensive and burdensome, and should be
>     >>    reserved for important issues that are cross-cutting.
>     >>  * Plenary communication is necessary when there is an important
>     >>    question for the community to consider.
>     >>  * Discussion of such issues must be well organized and
>     facilitated;
>     >>    and the plenary discussion should be of finite duration.
>     >>  * There should be some outcome.  The outcome may be a mailing
>     list, a
>     >>    BOF, dispatch to a dispatch group, an IAB program, or
>     feedback from
>     >>    a body such as the IESG or IAB.  The outcome shouldn't be an
>     >>    immediate policy change, but if there is interest, some means to
>     >>    focus the discussion that might later use our existing
>     processes to
>     >>    effect that change.
>     >>  * Plenary discussions may not happen on a regular basis,
>     because there
>     >>    may not be anything important to discuss.
>     >>  * The community should decide what's important. This is a bit of a
>     >>    chicken and egg issue, though.  Sometimes, an issue must get
>     tossed
>     >>    around before its importance is understood by others.  What's
>     >>    important is that just because Eliot thinks an issue is
>     important
>     >>    and cross cutting doesn't mean that it is to others.
>     >> How does this differ from *dispatch?
>     >> There are two major differences:
>     >> 1. The matter must be of cross-cutting importance.
>     >> 2. The input to the process may not be a draft to be
>     dispatched, but
>     >>    simply an important question.
>     >> Possible Examples
>     >>  * How should the IESG/LLC organize its COVID response? (past)
>     >>  * Is there anything the IETF should be doing to address particular
>     >>    threats or changes to the Internet model? (potential future)
>     >>  * What should be done about the RFC Editor process? (past)
>     >>  * What sort of working group working methods should be acceptable?
>     >>    (potential future?)
>     >>  * Should our work take into account HR considerations (past
>     and future?)
>     >> The astute will note that this isn't much different from what
>     you might expect at an in person plenary.
>     >> Modalities
>     >>  * EMail may not be the best way to hold plenary discussions. 
>     I think
>     >>    we've all seen bad interactions in email,  and we seem to do
>     better
>     >>    in person, and I think we largely enjoy each other's
>     company, quite
>     >>    frankly, even if that involves meetecho. perhaps a "discussion"
>     >>    might really be a set of meetings, the way Heather did
>     consultations
>     >>    toward the end of her tenor.
>     >>  * We need a way for the community to upvote issues to the
>     point that a
>     >>    plenary discussion can occur.  Perhaps Github could provide
>     us this
>     >>    opportunity.
>     >>  * IMHO a facilitator should drive the discussion (not lead
>     it), and
>     >>    help interested parties develop their views *prior* to a plenary
>     >>    discussion.
>     >>  * A good way to identify those interested parties would be *short*
>     >>    position papers.  Again, not email.
>     >> Comments?
>     >> Eliot
>     >
>     > --
>     > Gendispatch mailing list
>     > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>
>
>     -- 
>     Gendispatch mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>
>
>