Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 19:52 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 B9F221A1B82 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fYw_UFsVp7cw for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3337C1A03A2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdbnh10 with SMTP id nh10so15237098pdb.11 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=StwqVhgWB6iMdU0s2y1v6mKWreyth0Bi5gUUJzIQyHY=; b=ON+KKCiAawQzH60XRkdOHjilhKMBaHuu/r0h+HkQZK6Wm6w7qzt0Fd9CtAd1Z1DBJB 3o0K6a0druO1Y3P2RXdhBf85RBLRMPr6GY7Fl99s/LUrxSkLjWxdwG+B9ntcgDUhUEbV 183/MNgNI05G9vKPh2PcG9MVFVOiU5KF1sa/V0bQJl66DKnAbyxpot2USQ8xcJRLpCix khPGaeMM29k8/UFWv+gLVk5cq8f3uCIwHkUe2kimy4qIWR+jaPdlszaJa5dam7vrrOEG YxcYFvYJ/zbb/sVrWSJCF/xFI8G5FoAAOloyEbkXxNs29ZtNPm13lcnnk5t57C0kceC+ mk2w==
X-Received: by 10.66.129.169 with SMTP id nx9mr17283770pab.131.1424980368482; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7acd:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7acd:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gi6sm1708401pbd.93.2015.02.26.11.52.45 for <ietf@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:52:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EF7995.3040706@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 08:52:53 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.com> <2457EE06-4960-40B5-AF10-2EDFBF18B2B6@nominum.com> <7C601AA4-55C4-43FE-B2FE-1D22BD73F166@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyJ62hVyJVVLuL5-nXx_i5VO2cW3LA6R1sdZbDHxoY_Tw@mail.gmail.com> <43ADF7ED-6A42-4097-8FFA-5DA0FC21D07A@vigilsec.com> <CAKHUCzyfB+GhNqmDhrzki4tVn0faMLyt_cqgeHFcQL2b5pkkAQ@mail.gmail.com> <54DE3E1C.6060105@gmail.com> <007301d04927$64890d40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54EDA697.5070107@cisco.com> <01c701d050f6$c80fcd00$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAMm+LwgzXg+QM29ygS0Bv+HOo2Gd-hPByXYz2aVu-V4b=Jak+Q@mail.gmail.com> <54EEFCFB.7080107@cisco.com> <047F946E-3041-4510-8F78-D8D743C4FEED@nominum.com> <939B49536ECD5BFA17B5E5C4@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <48DFF1A2-9BD0-4E08-B44A-704D5DCC278E@nominum.com> <54EF3644.7090808@joelhalpern.com> <02ED4331-9441-484C-96A6-70352C42ABBC@nominum.com> <54EF426A.9070706@joelhalpern.com> <31CF2C53-8168-4B2F-9E14-76FB44854813@nominum.com> <54EF7229.1030301@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <54EF7229.1030301@queuefull.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/nG1on3f1A1tI8rdSyzRb9fLgjGI>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:52:50 -0000

On 27/02/2015 08:21, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Ted Lemon wrote:
>> we in fact do do work during f2f meetings, and the rule is "confirm
>> on the mailing list."   If working groups are not following that same
>> practice during interim meetings, they are doing it wrong.
> 
> I agree with this. In particular, I think the best mindset is that a WG's mailing list is the authoritative record. Decisions
> that happen in any sort of meeting are tentative until they find their way to the mailing list. (BTW: I think this helps avoid
> the dependence on having great minutes taken by volunteers, and the inevitable disappointment that brings.)

Sure. But that means that the WG chairs (or secretary) have a strong
obligation to send *detailed* explanations of issues raised and proposed
resolutions to the mailing list, promptly, i.e. the same day or the
next day, asking for discussion and opinions. I'd think (from experience)
that for each hour of teleconference, that would take a half hour of
drafting a careful email. If you don't do that, you are disenfranchising
the people who could not attend the teleconference, which is not OK.

On 27/02/2015 08:39, Andy Bierman wrote:

> I agree with your concerns.
> IMO virtual interim meetings should be used for discussing
> big issues where the WG is stuck.  They should not be for
> minor issues that could be handled on the mailing list.
> They should not be status meetings either.

Nor should they be design team meetings masquerading as WG
meetings. If there's a core of active designers who want to
meet weekly, that's fine as long as we don't pretend it's
something else.

> If work shifts away from the mailing lists to bi-weekly meetings,
> then this is somewhat unfair to the people who live in timezones
> where the meeting time is outside normal business hours.

Delete "somewhat" and I would agree with you.

    Brian