Indeed: very strong agreement from me with John and Warren. Barry On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 11:45 PM Warren Kumari <warren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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
