Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109

Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium.org> Thu, 22 October 2020 21:17 UTC

Return-Path: <jyasskin@google.com>
X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315903A1064 for <wpack@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.139
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 3FzUQ8Wczm1o for <wpack@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (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 0DAC73A1060 for <wpack@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id t20so1753721qvv.8 for <wpack@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4c9NX5s4TBwQM80L1JOIy1gQjlPas8L5K8LwXuxebiQ=; b=lzVSGDOTgP7sLPZU0OfT4Z87rRs7YoLpiWUB+Y97ZssXNlkxpftj2zP6jyJyls5/Xv aBF5qWfmVi6AzbGjAZIwZ6jCLDh744RzN6x58CYkeIiS9ZXlmnYaf98zm6Aq7+4oaP1Z XLSr99m3Afse91dB2miV1sCDbUVIhkzJsNkP4=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4c9NX5s4TBwQM80L1JOIy1gQjlPas8L5K8LwXuxebiQ=; b=qPOIwJ3mJQBi5sNs6a4OBEONWC/RYRqH7G6pfdHlmLw1Vf7dkFw+rYb9cYcd7moqPl LGGaJ9i5M4MitlnXHa7AB54acC3NtA08LaO82S7F6nPEgiYBMvASdWv/K2h6zVlJ+saG oYkc5zGE0GBeQt2h9O9XhcFzmkTeWw95daLW6yBwc+XfQAei1ULpEi0UwL9AsRcP4AWD w7cSa4sOqtbtQJYgTj8NcsMCkb/gSswHYuhTBy5CWNHuhw9z7knQNEpcOLOkAoYMjYlX ZRIR8G9qI5S09WnTqIlH+8mSMwP1JvhvMagISDuQzmngNgpovS5TrWiI679e9PTPQ1ln 4STA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FmjrEZTaYsrSSBk0xRCk+A0QoevzyHZdGh8XvTI6lQoLF18as 9kiujtlc+/Tin7vvyxJ6cx40nkU2VMNpZWTbEfGvjQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+8ifFXUIRx3hfCb6M4GgiYeo4jK6RnesmpCgUZtFdnZMHZSsh+0bSOWjP/bGW863geIk2dKrEeMAJFb2FxZ0=
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fa11:: with SMTP id q17mr4446645qvn.6.1603401432647; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> <CAKq15ve2=jTT7t-GqSHHgf_fwMeK5c-PMXeKRxQYuSSbZNQOSg@mail.gmail.com> <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> <CAKq15vfCJSLt_KOuoUXjVMe5VAW7kB988F7ZD9u17TZhoMBBhg@mail.gmail.com> <CANh-dX=_zB9nvRWHdEGAUjOPvMqaqTZ2UJPtZRm=UB-HXWnUXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKq15vfDPTNWrD2xUFmowsmN9BGyBTUfW6UAo1ZeGK7jSojiHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKq15vfDPTNWrD2xUFmowsmN9BGyBTUfW6UAo1ZeGK7jSojiHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CANh-dXmHOXY9_as9RQeDPwwvmQNKrFn2Sj79PsCbCzdroguPyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, WPACK List <wpack@ietf.org>, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3d59b05b248fc71"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/nIygE09P_WXvCo0llv1eNo6reYw>
Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109
X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Web Packaging <wpack.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wpack>, <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wpack/>
List-Post: <mailto:wpack@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack>, <mailto:wpack-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:17:16 -0000

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:58 PM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:

> >>  The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing
> list. e.g.
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html.
> Might it help to set up the same thing here?
>
> How do you imagine that helping with the issues I outlined?
>

You complained about "not using the mailing list". This would get more
traffic on the mailing list and might incite people to reply here who
aren't watching the github repository. That, in turn, would help the chairs
decide to hold meetings and figure out what aspects of the project have
interest. Maybe I'm wrong about all that, but it's what I imagine.

Jeffrey

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
>> The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing list.
>> e.g.
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html.
>> Might it help to set up the same thing here?
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim'
>>> but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group  And not using
>>> the mailing list either
>>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/
>>>
>>>
>>> "It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on
>>>
>>> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private
>>> discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think you've
>>> missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
>>> WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
>>> better here in the future."
>>>
>>> So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting.
>>>
>>> To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if they held a meeting and nobody came?"
>>>
>>> What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request on GitHub.
>>>
>>> To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining:
>>>
>>> Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review meetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document authors, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answer questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps
>>>> there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is
>>>> optional.
>>>>
>>>> The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn’t
>>>> always a very obvious choice.
>>>>
>>>> Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.
>>>>
>>>> More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of
>>>> generalists (“tourists”) coming in, so this is where new, formational work
>>>> should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t’s,
>>>> which might as well be done in an interim).
>>>>
>>>> Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on
>>>> a single subject — with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the
>>>> right time for that, too, but that is less likely.  There is less pressure
>>>> to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim;
>>>> ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the
>>>> meeting were met.  Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF
>>>> week meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row
>>>> and actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho
>>>> as opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected
>>>> by the chairs (which sometimes means I can’t attend).
>>>>
>>>> Grüße, Carsten
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wpack mailing list
>>> Wpack@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
>>>
>>
>
> --
> --
> https://LarryMasinter.net <http://larry.masinter.net>
>