Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Fri, 11 December 2015 14:35 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 1978F1A92FB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 FcCAjYR_WSdb for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF11E1A92ED for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (76-218-10-206.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.10.206]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id tBBEZIOY020852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:18 -0800
Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings
References: <20151210164031.22024.98672.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEBFAA5@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <A588E0AF-ADA4-4A3B-8C53-264A7812B1E0@piuha.net> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA6BEC023E@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> <566A95C3.8040106@cisco.com> <87ACBDDF-4D38-4FCC-BF62-BB334AEB2C7E@lucidvision.com>
To: Nadeau Thomas <tnadeau@lucidvision.com>, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <566ADF42.5050808@dcrocker.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:46 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87ACBDDF-4D38-4FCC-BF62-BB334AEB2C7E@lucidvision.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Fri, 11 Dec 2015 06:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MYiEtcI78Tp77vweexB5yeR-Zy4>
Cc: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 14:35:26 -0000

On 12/11/2015 6:19 AM, Nadeau Thomas wrote:
> I agree. Groups should actually be free to use whatever tools make sense
> for the task at hand.... It
> shouldn’t matter as long as the collaboration is as effective as possible
> for the participants.


As a philosophical point, that first sentence sounds great.  As a
practical one, the latter sentence makes the philosophic
insufficiently-specified...

To be inclusive, the operation of the group must rely on use of tools
that are known to be widely and easily usable, in the IETF context, by
essentially anyone wishing to participate.  That permits quite a bit of
variation, but not infinite variation.  Limiting the choices to tools
that have an established track record in the IETF removes risk from the
meeting activity.

Obviously there need to be ways to add new tools, but let's separate
those and class them as 'experiments'.

In fact a missing bit of IETF procedural documentation is a listing of
tools that have been found to be both usable and useful, and in what
ways they've been useful.

Hmmm...

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net