--On Thursday, 27 July, 2023 10:06 -0700 Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 27 Jul 2023, at 10:01, Michael Richardson >> <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Discounted registration for a first-time attendee. Perhaps in >> >> My (running) hash charges for first-time attendees, but it's >> free for the second time. This is to encourage people to >> return. >> >>> Make one of the meetings decentralized. Held simultaneously >>> in multiple places around the globe. Getting the logistics >>> and timezones equitable will be hard, but it would also >>> greatly reduce our CO2 usage. >> >> manycouches started this discussion, and a conclusion was >> that we should add a fourth meeting that was fully-online, >> and then maybe we can step down the three. > > That was a suggestion, not a conclusion. There is no plan to > add a fourth meeting. --On Thursday, 27 July, 2023 17:08 +0000 "Livingood, Jason" <Jason_Livingood=40comcast.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > IMO any change in meetings would need to come from the IESG. I want to push back a bit on this one aspect of the discussion. It is clear to me that there has been no IETF consensus for changing the number of meetings a year -- neither a couch discussion nor one on a particular WG mailing list would constitute such consensus even if those discussions had reached a clear conclusion. During the first part of the pandemic, the IESG took on a great deal of authority because it was necessary and I, for one, really appreciate them doing that. But we (including the IESG and LLC) need to get back to remembering that IETF consensus arises out of community discussion and (rough) agreement, with the IESG evaluating and confirming that consensus. Whatever a discussion or decision within the IESG, some WG or other meeting, or even by the LLC, may be, it is not, without a clear opportunity for informed whole-community discussion, IETF consensus. We should stop saying things that sound like claims to the contrary lest we discredit IETF consensus when it is important. And, finally and especially under the rather restricted circumstances in which those discussions occurred, the fact that there was no IETF consensus to change the meeting schedule or number of meetings per year does not imply that suggestion is dead or that it cannot be reopened without a prior decision by some Higher Authority. I am confident that neither Jay nor Jason intended that conclusion but I think it would be easy for someone unfamiliar with the IETF to make that inference from the notes quotes above. Assuming Michael still thinks some variation on that theme would be a good idea, I look forward to an Internet-Draft that spells out the recommended details. john
