Re: [admin-discuss] Next steps towards a net zero IETF

[Abdussalam Baryun <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:16 PM Eliot Lear <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
> My agenda:
>
>    1. Save the planet through less flying.
>    2. Improved engagement at in-person f2f meetings.
>
> I agree these are very important points and we need to solve them both
through IETF_WG/Area agendas/activities. Currently IETF is improving WG
engagement but not sure about Area,
However, IMHO the f2f meeting is more important for IETF_Areas, New_WGs,
New_technology, and New_Participants, so we may need more organisation at
IETF_Area levels.

>
>    1.
>
> On 05.04.23 08:19, Lars Eggert wrote:
>
>
> We've always trusted the WG chairs to make that determination, and use the different available participation venues (mailing list, in-person and remote interims, in-person meetings, etc.) in ways that is most effective for their WG for their current work items. While some chairs are certainly better than others in doing this, I believe this decentralized approach has a lot of value and is generally working OK.
>
> You just wrote that there is a demand for more plenary time from some WGs,
> and I just posted demonstrations of show and tell.  And I didn't look that
> hard.   I participated in other WGs remotely that had this same problem:
> there was no need for an in-person, because there was almost no
> controversy.  In scim, paging was the hot topic and there were barely any
> comments, and even in emu, where we did have a healthy discussion, everyone
> came to the right conclusion even with remote participation.  The chairs
> are modeling their behavior on what they think will be success (Bob posted
> a good example of this, although he and I differ on what success looks
> like).
>
I think WG_Chairs/ADs need to communicate more with Work_Leaders on the
list to fix best solution to meeting_agenda/meeting_activities.

>
> John's approach is incremental.  Earlier I would have been okay with that,
> but I don't think we have the time.  We need to be bolder.
>
> Involving the ADs in this process might seem attractive in terms of oversight and/or to establish a common approach - but it also further increases the AD workload (c.f. the current discussion on the that). There are severe downsides to that.
>
> There are clear downsides of not doing anything, which is the path from
> which we must depart.  I would argue that the risks of AD overload can be
> mitigated, albeit not eliminated, through clear and transparent processes
> that ADs themselves can follow.
>
> Tooling could help.  For example:
>
>    - No agenda => no meeting request.
>    - First time after recharter or BoF?
>       - 1 slot.
>       - For all other WGs, each agenda item, some justification:
>       - Has draft been proposed on mailing list or discussed at an
>       interim?
>          - No
>             - No slot
>          - Yes
>             - First time?
>                - Yes
>                   - A brief slot <= 20 mins**
>                   - No
>                   - No slot
>                - Is there lots of discussion on a topic on a mailing list
>       a/o at interims (draft or no draft)?
>          - Yes (explain how)*
>          - As much time as needed up to $max, chairs' discretion.
>             - No
>             - No slot
>          - AOB?
>          - Only if there is time.
>       - If total justified time < 1/2 the smallest session time (60
>    mins), not approved unless there is an exception granted.
>    - Anything that doesn't fit this bill would be an exception to be
>    granted only if there is excess time, based on criteria such as overall
>    list activity, last time a group met in person, or some other justification.
>
> This is just an example flow that attempts to motivate people to use both
> mailing lists and interim meetings so as to free up time for WGs that
> really need it.  I could easily see the # of working groups meeting shrink
> down by at least half who could better use the time.
>
That flow is a good example, which may need more develop from WG_Chairs and
ADs, for best success to your above two_point_objectives,
However, each IETF_Area needs to motivate important f2f_discussions. For
example some IETF_Areas have separate WGs with similar f2f_Participants, so
why not they have one slot together? It is good we have separate WG_Lists
to focus tasks/discussions, but within f2f_meeting we may need to join slot
of some WGs to motivate Area productivity (it will be easier for the ADs to
decide when some WGs joined).

best regards,
AB

>