From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 28 November 2024 at 01:25
To: Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx>, George Michaelson <ggm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx>, alldispatch@xxxxxxxx <alldispatch@xxxxxxxx>, 121attendees@xxxxxxxx <121attendees@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: [121attendees] Re: [Alldispatch] Results of the ALLDISPATCH Experiment (Was: Results and report of the IETF 121 post-meeting survey)
On 28-Nov-24 14:00, Salz, Rich wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2024, 10:41 Salz, Rich, <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> On 11/27/24, 7:32 PM, I wrote:
> >I don't understand why you think it is important that everyone in the IETF cares about its organization.
>
> > As a datapoint that argues against that proposition, note that with one exception barely 1/4 of the population volunteers for NomCom
>
> And as another datapoint, ALLDISPATCH at 121, which had nothing scheduled against it, had 300 attendees (again about 1/4 of the population), and 2026 and 2418 were announced on the agenda weeks ahead of time.
>
> * 300 is pretty good isn't it? That's a significant cross section.
>
> I don’t know what Brian’s goal is. The plenary had 300 attendance as well. And I have no idea how to get even 300 people to have a conversation in-person.
Firstly, to repeat myself, I definitely support folding ALLDISPATCH and plenary into a single session. It might be the same 300 people again, but it responds to the argument that plenary sessions are wasted time by halving the waste.
Secondly, it's unrealistic to expect 300 active participants in (say) MODPOD or NEWTRK++ but if we get 300 people aware and potentially interested to read process drafts, that's something. Also, experience suggests that WG Chairs and ADs are more likely than
anyone else to take an active interest in process issues, and by making this a plenary topic we're more likely to get their input.
If you want my goal, this is it: ensure that when we change the IETF process, it hasn't been done by 20 process wonks on their own, but with the advice and consent of a significant
fraction of the community.
My goal/approach slightly differs:
- Make it much quicker/easier to change the parts of the IETF process that really don’t matter so much. I.e., to save time/work, and to just fix/iterate
things a bit faster and more efficiently. E.g., move lots of process stuff to webpages + github rather than in RFCs.
- Keep the 20 keen folks who are keen on updating the IETF process but ensure that the community has had an opportunity to review and comment on the final
result before it gets published. I.e., a genuine last-call rather than the last-calls that we have today, which seem to mostly just be a formality and a window for directorate reviews, and perhaps comments from 1-2 folks.
Regards,
Rob
Brian
_______________________________________________
121attendees mailing list -- 121attendees@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 121attendees-leave@xxxxxxxx
