+1, except that i do not think a decision to change in-person
meeting frequency would one where normal "rough IETF consensus" would suffice.
Normal "IETF consensus" as for WGLC/IETF-last call really always only
reaches a part of the members of the community interrested in thre subject
matter. For something like changing meeting frequency, we can not
do this, because i think there is just a big risk of a lot of
bias in the active technical community. Such as in manycouches.
I'd like to see something like "strong IETF consensus" to be defined.
Should involve some significant majority of a questionaire based
feedback round.
Given how with dwindling travel budgets in many involved parties, a
lot of participants that can only afford to go to IETF in person once
a year in their region would like this frequency to go down to less
than once a year.
Cheers
Toerless
On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 12:45:35PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> --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
>
> --
> 117attendees mailing list
> 117attendees@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/117attendees
--
---
tte@xxxxxxxxx
