Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Fri, 11 December 2015 09:59 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81C691A6F32 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:59:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.509
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 GOn19vbteBBv for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:59:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42EB91A6EDB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 01:59:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6584; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1449827945; x=1451037545; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=RLjDfGOByySL63SIH7QPkqeF7jRkxqPG7ld0r6LyqPQ=; b=SopOgGo79C3bKkpFKjp/a0XXFoNqMVpBcS1nvadKKG+Gvpk8hEVtf/nC SVM4EhZH7L015BDnOwzNcRYOJAN9TTpeuwQAgPBkTKYQNFms7JvXDPf8Z K4k6rCe2FaRhkrI7BPNliBuB5GBYw7sY5OuEQPZ6j5DhWGBHB5lh0nn8n Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CqBACEnWpW/xbLJq1egm69IoQJhg8CgXkBAQEBAQGBC4Q1AQEEI0sKEQshDAoLAgIJAwIBAgFFBgEMCAEBEAeIFKxwkgIBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEBG4ZWhH2FGoJdgUkFlnGNRIFbh0qPd4NzY4JEgUE9hEMlgSMBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,412,1444694400"; d="scan'208,217";a="608869637"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Dec 2015 09:59:02 +0000
Received: from [10.60.67.86] (ams-bclaise-8915.cisco.com [10.60.67.86]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tBB9x2Lp021900; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:59:02 GMT
Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20151210164031.22024.98672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5669CDBC.6020408@gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <566A9E66.2030005@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 10:59:02 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5669CDBC.6020408@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040707050904090404010007"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/5XBj6F36nuFsGVNuIXxYJ_MPIR4>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:59:07 -0000
Hi Brian, > Hi, > > I find these two statements somewhat inconsistent: > >> Extended sequences of virtual interim meetings should be the exception and not the norm >> Recurring meetings (recommended if much debate is expected), may be scheduled together, with a single announcement. I don't understand the inconsistency. For example in NETMOD, we scheduled bi-weekly meetings until all open issues on a specific document were addressed. It doesn't mean that by default, we have recurrent meetings, and there is no agenda, we cancel the call. Maybe you have an issue with the term "recommended"? > Also, I think that in the bullet list for virtual interim meetings, a > significant point (for some of us) is missing. Something like: > > . IETF participants live in many different time zones. This must be taken into > account when scheduling. Recurring meetings should be arranged at varying > times of day to share the discomfort of late night or early morning calls > fairly. We would need the equivalent of this sentence, currently listed for the face-to-face meeting: o The meetings must be scheduled (location/timing) with fair access for all working group participants. Regarding your proposed sentence, we should trust the WG chairs to do what's right, instead of imposing more rules. With a global community participation, scheduling calls becomes a nightmare. A WG chair knows who the key players are in his WG (editor, authors, individuals in favor of the different solutions, etc.), i.e. the persons without without conclusions could not reached ... simply because the discussions would be repeated if they would be excluded. The advice to my chairs wrt to interim meetings is: - to have a successful interim, make sure all the key players are involved/included (*) - be fair in scheduling for everybody - anyway we validate the decision on the mailing list for the people who can't attend. In the past, I scratched my head on trying to express (*). All tentative sentence appeared as being non-inclusive. So I would go for a generic sentence, maybe something such as: The meetings must be scheduled (timing) with fair access for all working group participants. Regards, Benoit > > Regards > Brian > > . >
- For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to… IESG Secretary
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Dave Crocker
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Eliot Lear
- RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Adrian Farrel
- RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Jari Arkko
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Thomas Narten
- RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Benoit Claise
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Jari Arkko
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Benoit Claise
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Benoit Claise
- RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Harald Alvestrand
- RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Nadeau Thomas
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Nadeau Thomas
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Dave Crocker
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Ben Campbell
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Dave Crocker
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Alia Atlas
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Michael Richardson
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Yoav Nir
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Rich Kulawiec
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Michael Richardson
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Fac… Andrew Sullivan