Re: [I18ndir] Will there be an I18N directorate meeting at IETF 108?

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 02:13:13AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2020 00:26 -0500 Nico Williams
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:05:31AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> >> --On Tuesday, June 23, 2020 14:15 -0500 Nico Williams

[...]

> > You suggested that I should "write an I-D that ...".  Yes,
> > well, I have. I've not submitted it _yet_, though earlier I
> > did link the GH repository where I keep the source and
> > rendered output.  I am, of course, willing to submit it --
> > indeed, I plan to.  The thought occurred, you see, that if
> > there was to be a meeting at IETF 108, then I might aim for
> > it, and if not, then maybe the next one.
> 
> Ok.  And, while it is just my personal opinion and based on
> several guesses (including, IIR, a quick look at the GH
> repository) you need to take it to either the Internet Area or
> the IRTF and not i18ndir.  That belief would be the case even if

I'm not so sure.  To begin with, we were asked to early-review an I-D
regarding I18N and NFSv4, and presumably we'll have to review again
later when it progresses, so the matter is germane _here_ and _now_.  We
might advise punting to IRTF -or not-, but it is certainly within our
purview to provide review and advice at this time.

(It shouldn't even be necessary that I submit an I-D to have that
thread: we have an I-D in front of us (D. Noveck's) that is a sufficient
vehicle for debate.  My submitting an I-D is probably a good idea, but
hardly required.)

> the directorate were active and functioning as a directorate
> because I would then also suggest that, with all of the
> documents we should have in the pipe (many now-expired I-Ds), we
> should not prioritize new network file system designs.  My
> opinion might change after I studied a posted I-D, of course.
> And YMMD and so might that of many others.

Your opinion is noted.  Until this group is reformed/disbanded/
whatever, I will continue to act as though it is a directorate.

> > Thus my question.  Mine was a simple, polite, and fair
> > question -- one with a simple answer, and surely someone must
> > know the answer to it: will this directorate meet "at" IETF
> > 108?
> 
> Ok.  Then maybe I (and Asmus) should not have responded at all,
> because only Pete and one or the other AD can make that
> decision.  My note was just my opinion about whether such a
> meeting would be necessary or desirable and the conditions that
> might make it so.

It would be fair of the chairs to ask the participants if they want a
meeting.  Your saying "no" is fair.  Asmus said, essentially, "if the
time slot is convenient" -- also fair.  I'm saying "yes".  Three
responses may not be enough to determine consensus, but then, I don't
think the chairs need consensus to call a meeting.

> As of now, I have seen no evidence that such a meeting is
> scheduled or anticipated.

This is correct.

> > [...]
> 
> See above and note that one of those co-chairs has been
> essentially non-responsive for a few months (with a really good
> reason for parts of that period) and the other indicated a
> rather long time ago that he had no time to put in on this, or
> other IETF, work.

Well, then the chair who indicated no-time/interest should step down or
be removed.  I'm willing to wait for the other chair.  And I'm willing
to wait to IETF 109 if that chair won't be available anytime soon (a
fair assumption given the circumstances).  I'm not in a hurry.  David
Noveck has a late 2020 milestone to aim for, but that's after IETF 109
anyways.

I am _not_ willing to agree that we de facto aren't a directorate, or
that the directorate should be disbanded, or whatever negative proposal
along those lines -- not yet.

> So, for this decision and others, I await responses from either
> the remaining co-chair, from the ADs to re-sort the leadership,
> or from the ADs to manage some sort of reorganization.

Indeed.  I do advise against disbanding this team.  I believe your
negative outlook is unwarranted.  More leadership is required, to be
sure, and the first step is to recognize that.  Only after we have
attempted to address the lack of leadership and/or energy should we
consider abandoning the project.  Especially considering that I am
bringing some energy right now.  I'm willing to trade energy on the IDNA
matter for energy on the filesystem matter.

Nico
--