Hi Joel, Everyone wants to have more effective reviews. We have an agreement there. Where it gets tricky is how to accomplish this (ignoring what "effective" precisely means). The discussion moved into "I want to use my tools and not yours". There is no middle ground. You want to have everyone use email so you can scan through discussions more easily. Others, who have been working on implementations are familiar with Git, and they seem to feel that they are most efficient using those tools. Regarding "those who actually do the bulk of the work". There are lots of steps to get to widespread deployment of technology. Writing the spec is only a small part of the job. Producing implementations of the specs, and deploying them is a big part of it. Sometimes you can observe that people write specifications and then they run away because they believe the work is done. It is often more exciting to work on the latest thingy rather than doing the other 20% of the work that take 80% of the time. Those folks in the community who do also the last 20% should get credit and if we can make their life easier I believe we will get not only more done but we will also be more successful as an organization. You aware of all of this given how long you have been around in the IETF already. Ciao Hannes -----Original Message----- From: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 4:47 PM To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Old directions in social media. I do not see how your reply addressess the question of participating in effective cross-area review. Separatately, the question of "those who actually do the bulk of the work" seems misleading. I at least, I I think all the participants, understand that author teams or design teams will usee whatever tools they want. The issue is what is used for WG discussion and resolution of issues. All WG discussion of issues. Yours, Joel On 1/7/2021 5:17 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Joel, > > I fully understand that it is more convenient for you to have everything available in your favorite tool (in this case email). > But consider also what is easier and more efficient for those who actually do the bulk of the work. > > Ciao > Hannes > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 10:31 PM > To: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@xxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Old directions in social media. > > Hannes, I have to disagree about what it takes to participate in cross-area discussions. > > As an example, I have problems with something currently being discussed in the DMM group (whether I am in the rough or the predominating side remains to be seen. That is not the point of this comment. > > If I had to go through the discussion on the git issues tracker to figure out what was being said and why, it would be MUCH harder to appropriately participate in the discussions. > > Yours, > Joel > > PS: While I do not typically participate in dmm, I do follow it, and am at least somewhat knowledgeable about the space. The ability to follow it on the emial list is important to me. > > On 1/6/2021 10:56 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> Keith, >> >> for cross area reviews all you need are IETF drafts. I doubt that reviewers are interested in digging through the Github issues, PRs, and mailing list discussions. >> >> Regarding "resolving tussles we encourage them, and we produce more >> and more standards that lack coherence with one another." Note my >> mail on that topic, see >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/YWTxZEik6gqGod9d5KbAdqNbh3 >> g / Moving all discussions from Github to the mailing list will have >> no impact on this issue. >> >> Ciao >> Hannes >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Keith Moore >> Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2021 1:58 PM >> To: ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Old directions in social media. >> >> On 1/6/21 2:56 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: >> >>> The good thing is that there is no real problem here. In most working groups a limited number of people actively participate. Those people know how to contribute. For those who just browse through groups from time to time it got more difficult to see where the center of attention currently is. >> >> I would claim that what you describe *is* a real problem. IETF works best when it benefits from a wide range of input, including "cross-area" >> input and input from generalists. When working groups consist of a small number of people who do whatever they want in their narrow areas of concern, groups have a greater tendency to work at cross-purposes with one another. >> >> And I would claim that we've been seeing the unfortunate results of that for many years now, so that instead of resolving tussles we encourage them, and we produce more and more standards that lack coherence with one another. >> >> Keith >> >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. >> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
