It would certainly be ironic if a proposal to alleviate some of the disadvantages of remote participation couldn't be be discussed by remote participants in multiple time zones. With all due respect, etc. etc., I've always understood that discussion by email was intended to alleviate exactly that problem, and this list *is* the IETF plenary. So exactly who has been disenfranchised from this discussion who would be enfranchised by a physical or virtual BOF? Regards Brian On 18-Apr-19 06:56, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 13:22 -0400 Aaron Falk > <aafalk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 17 Apr 2019, at 11:10, Adrian Farrel wrote: >> >>> Can I suggest: >>> ... >>> - A virtual/interim BoF be held in (say) four weeks from now. >> >> What a cool and (now that you've stated it) obvious idea! >> Has it been done before? > > Let me take Adrian's suggestion a step further: since the > primary issue the draft is trying to address is associated with > remote participants, perhaps we could schedule two or three > virtual BOF sessions to make participation from different > timezones convenient? > > In addition... > > --On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 10:46 -0400 Alissa Cooper > <alissa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I discussed this with the IESG and our recommendation is for >> you to submit a BOF proposal if you'd like to pursue this >> further. We think these kinds of changes to the IETF's >> governance structure need the more in-depth problem statement >> discussion and broader review that a chartering process and >> working group would provide. > > With the disclaimer that, while I'm somewhat implicated in the > document, I've turned over the decision-making to SM, part of > the intent was to keep the draft very narrowly focused rather > than opening up the range of possible changes to the IETF's > governance structures that the above seems to imply and that > would almost certainly require another iteration on the POISED/ > POISSON work that built the foundation of those processes. I > persuaded him to include the change to allow IESG/ IAB members > to initiate recalls because that had come up years ago but there > seemed to be insufficient energy at the time to carry it > forward. If the conclusion from the IESG's informal discussion > is that including that change broadens the scope from making an > adjustment to increase the ability of mostly-remote participants > to ensure fair treatment to changes requiring broader review, > then I would recommend removing that change and narrowing the > focus of the document. > > Conversely, if the IESG has concluded that a more general review > of procedures is needed (nearly 20 years after what I think was > the last such review in POISSON), then let's try to solicit > proposals for such a WG and its scope and figure out whether > that actually needs a BOF. > > best, > john > > > >
