Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work

"Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com> Thu, 26 February 2015 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <jmh@joelhalpern.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 470F51A87A7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:48:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 1f_cOJkCRTTI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:48:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from maila2.tigertech.net (maila2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.152]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CD3B1A87AB for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:48:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C02924023A; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:48:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at maila2.tigertech.net
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (unknown [50.95.128.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by maila2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A553524056D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:48:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EF8676.3030309@joelhalpern.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:47:50 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work
References: <CAL0qLwZk=k-CWLte_ChK9f1kzLwMOTRyi7AwFa8fLjBsextBcA@mail.gmail.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> <54EF7995.3040706@gmail.com> <990C476B-B662-4C56-B818-3B74E616689D@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <990C476B-B662-4C56-B818-3B74E616689D@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/yhtCuNcDl0DSoMKfFjeVTsSnF9c>
Cc: ietf <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: <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 20:48:15 -0000

But I have seen nothing in our procedures, or even in emails from ADs to 
the wg-chairs list, or to the IETF list, indicating that our leadership 
expects chairs to live up to this standard.
Yes, careful analysis suggests that this is really implicit in our 
current rules.  But it is not happening.

Yours,
Joel

On 2/26/15 3:37 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Exactly.
>
>