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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

My agenda:

 1. Save the planet through less flying.
 2. Improved engagement at in-person f2f meetings.

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).

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?
      o 1 slot.
  * For all other WGs, each agenda item, some justification:
      o Has draft been proposed on mailing list or discussed at an interim?
          + No
              # No slot
          + Yes
              # First time?
                  * Yes
                      o A brief slot <= 20 mins**
                  * No
                      o No slot
      o 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
      o 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.

Want to try it for one meeting?

Eliot

*Oddly, *this* discussion has enough heat that it might benefit from 
some in-person dialog.

**One could also imagine a requirement that TWO interim virtual meetings 
be held to introduce work, so that f2f time isn't required for that 
purpose.