IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and proposed WG

Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org> Thu, 14 May 2020 20:36 UTC

Return-Path: <tale@dd.org>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 807963A0D12 for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 13:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IyRPuo3Y5tld for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 13:35:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gro.dd.org (host2.dlawren-3-gw.cust.sover.net [207.136.201.30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E1D23A0D10 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 13:35:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gro.dd.org (Postfix, from userid 102) id 12043DDB8; Thu, 14 May 2020 16:35:57 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <24253.43949.54026.942349@gro.dd.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 16:35:57 -0400
From: Dave Lawrence <tale@dd.org>
To: manycouches@ietf.org
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <3156.1589482194@localhost>
References: <E103897C-F9D9-4ED3-AB45-FD2967D7F49E@cooperw.in> <3844.1589465784@localhost> <27533110-8E7A-4D9B-ACDD-6B7CAA50EDEF@cooperw.in> <3156.1589482194@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/BH10VUaPPHihORap4i4Nn_GmWTM>
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and proposed WG
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List is a design team list to identify issues that would arise should an IETF meeting ever be held with O\(1000\) 'remote' participants." <manycouches.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/>
List-Post: <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 20:36:01 -0000

Michael Richardson writes:
> So, there is always this adage that we can always re-charter a WG
> and re-open it, that makes it easy for us to close it.
> 
> Do we really like making new TLAs so much?

Speaking for myself, not really; I'm kind of put off by how often
collisions occur.  But besides that, why do we care either way here?

I appreciate your larger point that you don't have to really twist
things too much see how mtgvenue could have been a suitable home, but
I'm unclear what drives it to be superior.  Are we at risk of either
missing interested parties or over-including disinterested parties?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email