--On Wednesday, July 27, 2022 12:58 -0400 Pete Resnick <resnick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Understood and appreciated although it isn't clear to me how >> someone who is not "part of the system" is expected to figure >> that out. > > The audio streams appear on the agenda page as a little > headphones icon next to each session. Mentioning that > somewhere on the agenda page or in the FAQ would probably be > "A Good Thing"™. Pete, I believe there are two very separate topics here and have changed the subject line in the hope of not getting them hopelessly intertwined. One is the question (informed by Jay's note) of whether certain classes of decisions are being made by small teams, interpretation of discussion in WGs, or executive action [1] or whether the broader IETF should be informed in advance and/or consulted. Part of that, inevitably, is the question of the boundary between the significant and the insignificant (probably too-familiar to you from its cousin in RSWG). The other (and this note) are how we get better about telling people what options exist and where to find them. So, yes, the FAQ could use some words about this. IMO, the main meeting page might mention it. The agenda page, IMO, could use a detailed legend/explanation of each of those little icons. The tool tips are adequate for helping people who know what they are looking for click on the correct one, but for someone looking for a function, they are rather cryptic (same comment might be made about the icon collection in Meetecho). In general, I think that any time we change something that existed before (independent of how the decision is made), we need to get much better at asking the question "who might be affected by this change and how do we let them know about alternatives/ where we moved something to/ etc." john [1] A term of art, not a comment about Jay, Cindy, Alexa, or any other individual who might have, or have had, "executive" in their titles)
