On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 6:51 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:
--On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 13:20 -0400 Michael
Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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
After all, when the liturgy was in Latin, the laity knew their place.
-- Michael Padlipsky
