Nope, that’s where I dropped the ball. I will try to post something, but don’t wait for me. Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 1, 2019, at 5:17 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 05:01:55PM -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >> I don???t see any point in asking an ad to take this on unless one wants to. > > My thinking is that if we want a WG to do something we need WG chair > sponsorship. If we want to have an area do something we need AD > sponsorship. If the scope of the experimeent would go beyond area, > sponsorship becomes even more convoluted. Hence scope area seems > a good experiement. > > Yes, the AD would not have to be running the show, but needed beyond > sponsoring also to click all the right buttons in all the right > tools. If we had volunteers to take care of the logistics/plan the > experiment, even better. > > [ Shall i dare to say that networking folks have volunteered for > decades, its called the Noc. So where are the application/conferencing > layer volunteers ? Wheren't the application layer folks supposed to > take over the IETF anyhow ? (yes, i know, its a lame attempt at public > shaming to improve things, i am not Greta ;-) ] > >> I think any couches is a great place to take this conversation. I tried to start a conversation about this there in Prague but then didn???t have time to actually work on it between then and Montreal. I think what happened there would be useful to talk about. > > So, move this discuss to manycouches@xxxxxxxx ? and ask > the other folks on this thread who would like to be part of the > solution to join too ? > >> But the bottom line for me at the moment is that this has to be done incrementally in ways that help me to be more effective in the IETF, not as a forklift upgrade. > > Sure, please communicate your best idea of a meaningfull experiment > (unless you already did earlier on manycouches before i joined, then > i'll have to dig it up). > > Cheers > Toerless > >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Aug 1, 2019, at 4:51 PM, Toerless Eckert <tte@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Is there any existing mailing list where the topic of virtual IETF >>> meeting can be moved to ? >>> >>> I checked the manycouches archive and the last post was from me in >>> april. If thats the only place where the discussion was supposed to >>> happen until now, i can only conclude that there is not enough energy >>> in the community itself to come up with proposals. >>> >>> Then again, manycouches is not listed on the non-wg mailing page, so >>> i don't even have an idea how that list could have been created, but >>> if it was done so hush-hush, maybe thats a reason why there isn't much >>> traffic on it. >>> >>> I can see how you want to push the ask to people who should do it >>> as part of their job responsibility (LLC), but hasn't past experience >>> shown that that the community is mostly not happy with stuff where >>> its not involved in the process ? >>> >>> Aka: Instead of trying to only ask to outsource to LLC or the like >>> and come up with baked solutions, maybe it would be better to ask >>> someone with a job responsibility to take a lead with at least an >>> experiment first. >>> >>> Eg: Lets have one AD coordinate a virtual interim for just one area. Maybe >>> two..three days. Maybe two tracks in parallel. One doing educational >>> presentations to attract audience to WGs (PPTX highly welcome, please >>> also post questions upfront to presenters), and one doing actual work >>> on documents (PPTX mostly despised ?), and the webex for the work >>> meetings could be independent of each other, so people can stay on >>> the channels and work overtime if they don't have conflict (its not >>> as if the rooms cost real money). >>> >>> Aka: experimentation shouldn't only save travel pains but also attempt >>> to improve on other shortcomings of our physical meeting structure (such as >>> in my example the conflict between finishing draft and educating >>> interested candidate participants as well as physical limits on number >>> of rooms). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Toerless >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 08:27:00AM -0400, Eliot Lear wrote: >>>> Don, others who think three meetings are the right number, >>>> >>>>> On 25 Jul 2019, at 10:46, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am also in favor of keeping three meetings a year. >>>> >>>> >>>> Why three? Why not four, two, five? >>>> >>>> Here is my claim: we can fly less and be more effective. I am asking simply that the LLC in consultation with the IESG test that statement by finding the right questions, collecting and analyzing data, and then bring the results of their analysis with recommendations to the community for our consideration. >>>> >>>> I take seriously the need for hallway conversations, hackathons, ad hocs, in addition to our formal meeting time. That has to be taken into account. >>>> >>>> But it has been some 28 years since we went to three meetings per year. Let???s please do the work to understand what options we have. That???s my request. Do you disagree? >>>> >>>> Eliot >>> > > -- > --- > tte@xxxxxxxxx
