Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com> Fri, 11 December 2015 14:24 UTC
Return-Path: <tnadeau@lucidvision.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 115D51AD06C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:24:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 9xzzGpTXKmYD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:24:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lucidvision.com (lucidvision.com [64.71.170.115]) (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 AA1691AD06B for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:24:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lucidvision.com; s=default; t=1449843838; bh=IMSI9vOVYvKsowiFGohorQ9n7ysLGEKsqbTrtFPrp/U=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=b+pxxUAlRsnfDr6bgu0qf0snSTEYV4nqKQzudFUrye9nOkqrmA3F08x/r0A+izkgM 5M7FlsDGIXQXeEtGX8wFy0K3FmTpRKfW9J149OEjIeFDEedNuE1x9lSS4tI5A1HPHc WxUcZRmnHWJUuvxc+/QyklblToIOWiVv2r47cQ5k=
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=50.255.148.181;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.1 \(3096.5\))
Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
From: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>
In-Reply-To: <566AAAEF.4090809@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 09:24:14 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C30FABB2-306C-4C14-9B8D-A812C585FDF0@lucidvision.com>
References: <20151210164031.22024.98672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5669CDBC.6020408@gmail.com> <566A9E66.2030005@cisco.com> <566AAAEF.4090809@joelhalpern.com>
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3096.5)
X-Authenticated-User: tnadeau@lucidvision.com
X-Info: aspam skipped due to (g_smite_skip_relay)
X-Encryption: SSL encrypted
X-MyRbl: Color=Yellow Age=0 Spam=0 Notspam=4 Stars=0 Good=0 Friend=0 Surbl=0 Catch=0 r=0 ip=50.255.148.181
X-IP-stats: Notspam Incoming Last 0, First 210, in=2827, out=0, spam=0 Known=true ip=50.255.148.181
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DJ9COy4hAifJp2Ta8MWoneKOJMM>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
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 14:24:24 -0000
> On Dec 11, 2015:5:52 AM, at 5:52 AM, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@joelhalpern.com> wrote: > > The NetMod style interim meetings are an example of the exclusionary problem I see with virtual interims. > a) for all practical purposes, decisions are being made at the interims, with some verification on the list. That is inaccurate; we make decisions but have brought them to the list for verification (and documentation purposes). > b) that schedule of meetings is inherently exclusionary of a large range of people. Yes, a consistent core of people getting together and working on a project consistently can make more progress. But that is at the price of effectively excluding the alrger community. So are physical meetings. The point of getting to the bottom of issues needs to be the driving factor here; not having meetings. The only way to know that people are not able to attend meetings is for them to tell the co-chairs, and then make adjustments - which I personally have done many times to accommodate participants. —Tom > We do allow and encourage design teams. And design teams get together in whatever way and schedule they want. > > However, a design team has to thoroughly justify there results to the working group, and get meaningful concurrence. Merely confirm acceptance is not usually sufficient for design team outputs.. > > Yours, > Joel > > On 12/11/15 4:59 AM, Benoit Claise wrote: >> 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. >
- 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