On Sun, Jul 30, 2023, 20:45 John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> 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
>>
I'm fine with doing an ietf remotely. There are some challenges and thanks to onsite hands, we were able to make things go forward.
It appears that it's unlikely that we will have electric airplanes anytime soon. With the current climate change problems, shouldn't the ietf prepare for a future where we will need to survive a deadly environment due to 4-5 degrees warming up by 2050 ?
>> 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
