Re: making upcoming calendar more useful

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:51 PM John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 13:20 -0400 Michael
> Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >
> > John C Klensin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >     > Announcement list --selective digests, avoiding four
> > separate     > interim meeting postings at the same time for
> > the same WG,     > encouraging calendar subscriptions, etc.--
> > then I think we     > address the real problem while splitting
> > up lists even more just     > create distractions.
> >
> > On the topic of calendaring, and "upcoming" being more useful
> > for planning. I've asked for the various area meetings, such
> > as the RTG Chairs Chat, IESG telechat, IoT Directorate, etc.
> > to be on the calendar.
> >
> > My purpose is allow people who are planning meetings to know
> > what else is occuring.   Maybe we can do a "this week at the
> > IETF" page.
> >
> > There are tooling issues for some of these requests.
> > But, the major pushback I got was that some of these events
> > are not open to anyone, and so shouldn't be listed.  I
> > disagree :-)
>
> I do too, for at least two reasons.  One is that transparency
> suggests that we should not be secretive about which closed
> meetings are being held.  The other, more important, is that
> including the closed meetings makes it much easier for those who
> might be involved in, or concerned about, them to spot potential
> or actual conflicts.
>



+1.

I think that the transparency of having closed meetings listed will also
cause people to reconsider if their meeting *really* has to be closed.

W

>
>   john
>
> --
Perhaps they really do strive for incomprehensibility in their specs.
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky