On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 10:01 PM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> that you proposed that in this message:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/XRtDpLbLkhGnbaih0leVDi2G32A/
> and while there was some support, no consensus call was made.
There is no WG, so no chairs, so no rough consensus call was made.
It happened in the Prague Hotel lounge on a bunch of couches.
But, in the end, everyone involved in that discussion seemed to feel that
this was the best direction. Of course, such an "in-room" consensus would
need to be checked in a larger group, so stop being quite so pedantic, and
let me report.
I agree that it is important for IETF to support WG chairs (as when they request the meeting_support with their chair_group_consensus) for their important host_work per IETF_meeting, I recommend they write a draft for that including the good reasons for the proposal which most of ietf_participants don't know about. I believe the support can change/support many ietf_new_activities in future meetings.
Furthermore, IMO there should be an administrative_audit report prepared from ietf_LLC regarding the management performance per ietf_meeting, as they have did survey on number of attendees. So that support proposal can help the performance of ietf.
(I pointed that out in IETF meeting but the ietf chair did not understand my question and stoped it, so I did not get my answer from LLC).
AB
