Larry asked:
This is a bit of "protocol" engineering that no one will do for the IETF. It's contingency planning, but the probability of the contingency isn't low.
SHMOO is chartered explicitly to avoid the cadence question.
So GENDISPATCH? Really?"
These are important questions for the future of the IETF and how it can work in a changing world. That deserves its own thread and discussion, rather than being buried in "well, we're unlikely to meet in Egypt."
Lloyd Wood
But if the IETF never meets, IETF meetings can no longer ever be accused of being exclusionary, of being oppressive, of lacking diversity, of reinforcing existing privilege, of implicitly supporting racism, of damaging the planet through travel without carbon offsets, of being too inconvenient and/or expensive, or of manifestly being cisgendered.
So, technically, never holding physical meetings would help to address the aims of participants active in GENDISPATCH and in SHMOO. That's a win-win.
L.
It had become necessary to destroy the IETF in order to save it.
Lloyd Wood
lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Thursday, August 27, 2020, 11:25, Larry Masinter <LMM@xxxxxxx> wrote:
How pleasant to while away dreaming of distant venues, lovely gluten-free dinners in nearby restaurants in Egypt or Aukland or somewhere else new.
Unfortunately, there seems to be nowhere to discuss the contingency that the soonest the 1-1-1 cadence can resume is "never". How does the IETF work without a plenary meeting? What if you call a meeting and nobody comes?
How can the IETF function in a distributed fashion? What are the difficulties and how can they be addressed? What are the problems with _those_ solutions?
This is a bit of "protocol" engineering that no one will do for the IETF. It's contingency planning, but the probability of the contingency isn't low.
SHMOO is chartered explicitly to avoid the cadence question.
So GENDISPATCH? Really?
Larry
--
https://tenor.com/search/don-t-feed-the-trolls-meme-gifs take your pick
