Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 29 May 2020 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF133A091E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 rIqSsMXGhm-k for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (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 54E2C3A091C for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id c14so1305672qka.11 for <6man@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=zKHA1MwOI8HeoG78ddxORrt/g1RccRSpzJnr+G2m3os=; b=HochPjMXrZRR2EnpYQa64KV3SCm+tTkSjgLJCHP+nn0d3XVy8F+HlKG3VPmEF+1s2C NQPUstA4WKcNFeWTXP60TRK8Cm/C+G2ZogF6JUMkVQKNenmTGJ/gMq9/vnPbNOp8znL5 RWRtS9MD96E2lTrp2JjmkSsqmNS1vJNEjoVUMMs9MlHRU6fnchevHGocFqKse/qRdo/6 lYjUSA6npk+s6poPYXF77c5IdpeXgzZalwwnfvRqeXJcBSuhMeoHit3QKy8h0TzVUivl 693uHwrVn46F6Mj2qpNADRtZikFkicESSbhSZqRIpgboh7U/n3/NQjUXtZ7Vr4iMJbLB pJgg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=zKHA1MwOI8HeoG78ddxORrt/g1RccRSpzJnr+G2m3os=; b=ewfAbFxc6exF+4HdBs9Mlw2w+abm3LKVROqMxNW1iQMtFjghSjsZ4MjIdYZjOs6zxl MM6YlmzFoEOfRtBZJUDLNLGSly6+r8HnxDTzTCIQrpfQ3M/rUsg44disrdPuDlR+uIYy x/PjQCOLGueSIfy7S15W62ASVvdHkhgsx1FERsRqtosyRRhe4Mj+i3dzUAfEwgJx4UC3 X8IztFFHeDbsIZCWZr0g+53O1Bx4O+DvyNTpmc/ZwjQOTR0OoAmVeZNH2NRI7nicEmfO 2YWjenIfeqX9jb+JtXIg2/U1dFiak2qKHTZZ6JPX31txB4/xWpPnmDvkb+FkA/OnIh5e PSEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533A8xIs2zDYW/j/V/urCuJZ8ankuBk2erd4VJeKkY+WVOZCdOnY GDvjjujNF3Khf/o/dDRwpLkMXg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzGpq2sHvnbUf+INn3/yvfG1SHfC0S0Ewb92ozmV9gvYDcWewGtWi1T0YhdB7dJZI9aE1llog==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:bd81:: with SMTP id n123mr7664999qkf.57.1590762604307; Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:9567:3d83:ceca:52fe? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:9567:3d83:ceca:52fe]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h125sm7005906qkd.93.2020.05.29.07.30.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 29 May 2020 07:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <7AC15DBA-17DD-4CF7-95C1-0F1C6775BF30@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_ECE9601D-7F14-487D-9C75-E3137EF682F2"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.13.2.1\))
Subject: Re: So where have all these new 6man WG people come from?
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 10:30:01 -0400
In-Reply-To: <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com>
Cc: Ronald Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, 6MAN <6man@ietf.org>
To: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>
References: <CAO42Z2xDygUXTGwVunGSTMkZGMF8VePrPaXLSAJg14vAJdca5A@mail.gmail.com> <6DB604C0-2C29-44A8-AB01-DA697552C7DA@employees.org> <1C1F0496-33A8-4646-B356-369EA9ABAD33@gmail.com> <DM6PR05MB6348501B266FF51DD805C25DAE8F0@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <70CDD965-C9B4-4A15-9ACA-FFE685D97129@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.13.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/7KZpYGXGqlaC3pcck2By-s5ydJU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:30:07 -0000

On May 29, 2020, at 10:17 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com> wrote:
> My main point was that a list discussion of this type rarely reaches an acceptable outcome, and that an objective discussion at IETF is normally a better approach. Indeed resolving issues like this is exactly why we meet F2F at IETF.

My experience with this is more that working group chairs are quite active in moderating discussions during in-person meetings, and really tend not to take responsibility for doing that on the mailing list. This produces the effect you’ve observed, that it’s easier to get consensus in-person than on the list.

This is unfortunate; if the chairs took a more active role on the list, considering the cost of the time it takes for participants with coding jobs to follow multi-hundred-post repetitive arguments, we would probably do a better job of reaching consensus on-list.

Of course, this is a lot of work, and it’s sort of understandable that it doesn’t happen; my point is simply that if we want to be an effective _online_ organization, maybe we need to start doing things a bit differently.