Re: IETF meat grinder

[Richard Barnes <[e-mail]>]

Similar feedback to Rich here...

In the MLS WG, which is similarly 95% not habitual IETF offenders, we have
proceeded mainly by doing work in the style the folks doing the work are
used to doing, and accommodating the IETF to the degree necessary.  So
largely working on GitHub, with Wire chat for easy coordination, and video
calls [1].  It has been amusing coaching people through all the IETF's
ridiculous idiosyncrasies, especially when it comes to the final approval
steps.

Your subject line, "IETF meat grinder" seems like the wrong approach -- we
as insiders should not be subjecting/inuring newcomers to the process, we
should be making it easy to participate while meeting the IETF's goals of
transparency / consensus / etc.


On Sun, Oct 2, 2022 at 9:29 AM Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Salz, Rich <rsalz=[e-mail]> wrote:
>     > At its start, HTTPAPI had half its membership as IETF newcomers.
> The approach I took, and recommend, is that you have a block diagram
>     > wg -> iesg -> publication
>     > Inside WG is
>     > draft-> issues->fix->repeat
>     > Don't spend much time on the first slide.  Go into more detail as
> you get to those phases.
>
> Good advice, and basically what I was looking for.
>
> I like the flow with cycles in it idea.
> I think that there are some tools that create new diagrams like that.
>
>
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
>
>
>
>