--On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 22:04 -0500 Benjamin Kaduk
<kaduk@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 08:38:44AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Taking this question at face value: technically, "no one",
> since membership in the list is open modulo posting actions or
> SAA actions (I think there may be one or two of the latter
> still active, hence scare quotes). But in practice, I hear
> from the grapevine that many people are unwilling to subscribe
> to or participate in discussions solely on this list, because
> the volume of traffic is large and the perceived signal/noise
> ratio insufficient to merit the time commitment.
>
> Having a dedicated discussion forum other than this one is
> both in keeping with the list charter and would provide a
> lower barrier to participation from those who have stayed away
> from the general discussion list but do care about remote
> participation. It is fair to debate the cardinality of that
> set, if you have a different perception than me, of course.
Ben,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have just made an
argument for either a dedicated mailing list or, as Spencer
suggested, using something like the ietf-nomcom (more like
co-opting, because this really isn't about the nomcom) list and
no argument at all for a BOF.
john
