Re: calls for discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Margaret,
At 04:32 12-02-2014, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
It is more complicated than that?

We like to act/think/talk as though "the people in the room" are a meaningful subset of "the people on the mailing list", and therefore are aware of the discussion on the list and can make tentative decisions that are representative of the list (to be confirmed on the list later). The fact is that many of the people in the room at an IETF meeting are not even subscribed to the mailing list, and many of the people who are subscribed to our mailing lists do not read them. There is also the fact that only a tiny number of people in the room have looked at the agenda for this meeting beforehand, and even fewer have read the drafts on the agenda.

Yes.

of only those people who are most active in the work year-round. In those organizations, it is possible for the people in the room (or on the call) to reach some consensus that is likely to be representative of the list, and then say "Of course Bob and Dave aren't here, so we better run this by the list to make sure that we really have consensus."

That's what the rules of the IETF read like, but in reality the group of people in the room is almost entirely disjoint from the group of people on the list, and in many WGs, _all_ of the most important decisions have been made in a meeting room at an IETF plenary meeting (and merely "confirmed" on the list) for many years. In other words, most of our work is _not_ done on the mailing lists, or even by people who are reading most of the messages that are sent to those lists.

[snip]

That stinks, but if we want to change it, we need to _do something to change it_. It does not help to keep stating an untruth as if it were the truth.

Yes.

There are some IETF WGs that operate differently. They do their work on the mailing lists and have "interim" meetings or telechats as needed that are organized on their WG mailing list. Some of them don't even meet at IETF meetings, because they see no value in presenting their work-in-progress to the masses. It would have an unfortunate impact on our revenue stream if more groups started operating that way, as our main sources of income are tied to attendance at plenary meetings, but maybe more groups should try this sort of thing, anyway?

It is not worth having a (working group) meeting if there isn't any major issues to discuss about. I am not keen about having sloppy minutes for that discussion as it does not make it easier for people not in the room to understand what was discussed and it also does not make matters easier for a non-English audience.

Does anyone have any other ideas about how we can get back to a point where most of our decisions are made by people who are active on the WG mailing list and interested in the work of the group year-round?

I don't think that it is possible to do go back to an old version of the IETF, assuming that version actually existed. The incentives are such that decisions are taken at meetings; it works to the advantage of people funded by corporations, it is politically appropriate to live with an untruth or a half-truth.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]