Subject: [Rfced-future] Logistics and the agenda for the 14/15 May call

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 13:34:00 +0200

Hi everyone,

As a reminder, our first virtual meeting will take place at 9:00pm GMT on the 14th of May.  Information is below.  As we have been discussing, in order to use that time efficiently, I invite you to indicate what you think are the most important questions to answer.  I expect we’ll get to discuss at most 3-4 of them.

I have created a surveymonkey poll here.

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9XGKS89 <https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9XGKS89>

I will close the poll on the 11th of March so we have a day or two just to agenda bash on list, if necessary.

Also, I am looking for volunteers to capture in Etherpad some notes.  If you can help, please unicast as it will speed the discussion.

Duration: 90 minutes

Webex Information: 
https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m6e894a38b5cf6c139af7eca0891907ca <https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m6e894a38b5cf6c139af7eca0891907ca>
Meeting number (access code): 618 351 526
Meeting password: DSnNT3piK67

Thanks,

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 13:39:57 -0400

Hi Eliot -

Three things.  First,  please make sure this meeting gets announced and 
added to the IETF calendar as well as the second one when we settle on a 
date/time.  I'd suggest doing that sooner than later.

Second, I really hate the form of this survey.   Many of these topics 
are important - just not right now.  I suggested and now reiterate a 1-5 
scale of "Work on now" to "defer until later"  rather than "not 
important" to "very important".  For the purposes of the current form, 
"not important" means "let's defer" and "important" means "lets talk 
about it".

Too many of the questions read like push polls - especially the "who" 
questions.    e.g. "Who provides recommendations to make the series more 
accessible to various audiences?" comes with the assumption that "making 
the series more accessible" is an agreed upon goal.

Lastly, what's the progress in bringing a second chair on board?

Mike

On 5/7/2020 7:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As a reminder, our first virtual meeting will take place at 9:00pm GMT 
> on the 14th of May.  Information is below.  As we have been 
> discussing, in order to use that time efficiently, I invite you to 
> indicate what you think are the most important questions to answer.  I 
> expect we’ll get to discuss at most 3-4 of them.
>
> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/9XGKS89
>
> I will close the poll on the 11th of March so we have a day or two 
> just to agenda bash on list, if necessary.
>
> Also, I am looking for volunteers to capture in Etherpad some notes. 
>  If you can help, please unicast as it will speed the discussion.
>
> Duration: 90 minutes
>
> Webex Information:
> https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/j.php?MTID=m6e894a38b5cf6c139af7eca0891907ca

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:45 +0200

Hi Mike

> On 8 May 2020, at 19:39, Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eliot - 
> 
> Three things.  First,  please make sure this meeting gets announced and added to the IETF calendar as well as the second one when we settle on a date/time.  I'd suggest doing that sooner than later.

The last one was announced through normal channels.  This is an IAB activity and there are tooling integration issues re the IETF tools.  This having been said, I’ve been thinking about sending around a calendar invite.  Is that something people would like?

> 
> Second, I really hate the form of this survey.   Many of these topics are important - just not right now.  I suggested and now reiterate a 1-5 scale of "Work on now" to "defer until later"  rather than "not important" to "very important".  For the purposes of the current form, "not important" means "let's defer" and "important" means "lets talk about it".

Next time around I will happily tap you to work with me to design the survey.  I am sorry if it felt like a push poll to you.  When others are answering, please keep in mind the goal is just to figure out what to talk about for one meeting. 

> Lastly, what's the progress in bringing a second chair on board?  

That’s not a question for me, right?

Eliot

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 13:59:29 -0400

> The last one was announced through normal channels.  This is an IAB activity and there are tooling integration issues re the IETF tools.  This having been said, I’ve been thinking about sending aro…

I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to announce this as an interim of 
some sort.  And yes, the calendar invite would be helpful.

> Next time around I will happily tap you to work with me to design the survey.  I am sorry if it felt like a push poll to you.  When others are answering, please keep in mind the goal is just to fig…

I believe I provided you the critical input of "let's talk now" to 
"let's wait" prior to you sending out the survey?   With respect to the 
questions, I do understand that you took them from the list, but they 
made me cringe.

> That’s not a question for me, right?

Actually  - it is.  I would expect that you would be interfacing with 
the IAB asking the self-same question rather than have all of us nudging 
them.   Feel free to pass the responsibility on to the liaisons.

Later, mike

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 17:13:06 -0700

Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> writes:

> the IAB asking the self-same question rather than have all of us
> nudging them.   Feel free to pass the responsibility on to the
> liaisons.

Hi Mike,

The timeline sent under the call for future chairs can be found here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/qNLbJ8FF7dxLvlQSWJVCDRO5q9E/

In that announcement you'll find that the call for volunteers ends on
2020-05-12, which is early next week.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2020 20:27:19 -0400

Yup - and I assume you’ll tell us if you need more volunteers in or before
that date?

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2020 20:22:56 -0700

"StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]> writes:

> Yup - and I assume you’ll tell us if you need more volunteers in or
> before that date?   

The IAB always benefits from as many volunteers as possible for
positions it needs to fill, just like the IETF and the nomcom benefit
for a wide set of candidates as well.  So certainly, if any one else is
interested in volunteering to serve with Eliot as an additional
chair(s), we'd love to hear from them.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 00:58:45 -0400

> chair(s), we'd love to hear from them.

Nope, but nice try.   Community said 2 or 3 chairs.  IAB-the-last didn't 
follow the community direction.  IAB-current  should be well on its way 
to having people to fill a second or third chair role, even if they need 
to dragoon someone or twist arms.  If we get to 12 May without 
sufficient volunteers, or with another rejection of Nevil and/or John 
(and if the IAB didn't consider them as nominees for the role, consider 
this my nomination - and I've cc'd the IAB for that purpose) that seems 
to be a problem that the IAB should be involving the community in 
earlier rather than later.  If you tell me that you've got a few good 
candidates and don't expect to have to reopen calls for volunteers, that 
would be sufficient and surprisingly refreshing.  I would be very 
disappointed if on the 12th of May we're where we were when the call 
went out the first time.

Later, Mike

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 10:01:38 +0200

Good morning, Mike.

> I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to announce this as an interim of some sort.  And yes, the calendar invite would be helpful.

The last meeting did get announced both on the -Announce list and here.   See the archives from the 30th of April.  I’ll be happy to send out the calendar invite so long as nobody objects.  The next meeting will be announced shortly in a similar fashion.  All are welcome.

> I believe I provided you the critical input of "let's talk now" to "let's wait" prior to you sending out the survey?   With respect to the questions, I do understand that you took them from the list, but they made me cringe.

Ok.  Again, happy to work with you on the next time around.

Eliot

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 9 May 2020 15:41:37 -0400

In article <[email-masked]> you write:
>this my nomination - 

Thanks, but no.  As I think I've said before, It would be too much of
a conflict with my paid role.

R's,
John

---

From: "StJohns, Michael" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 16:14:10 -0400

Klensin

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 13:53:35 -0700

Michael StJohns <[email-masked]> writes:

> Nope, but nice try.

FYI, I wasn't "trying" for anything (and am a bit confused).

One important consideration (IMHO) when opening a time window with a
call for nominations is that if half way through you state how many
nominations you have, it will end up changing the candidate pool.  If
the number seems low to people, then people may get scared off from
submitting their name, assuming the job is too hard (unlikely, but
possible).  If the number seems sufficiently large, then they may not
apply because "there are already enough volunteers" or "I'd never be
chosen".  [again: speaking only from my point of view; others may
disagree with me about this line of thinking]

After the call is over on the 12th, and the IAB meets on the 13th I
expect we'll have an announcement for the next step, which will include
collecting feedback, per item 2 in the minutes from Apr 08:

https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2020/iab-minutes-2020-04-08/

> If we get to 12 May without sufficient volunteers, or with another
> rejection of Nevil and/or John (and if the IAB didn't consider them as
> nominees for the role, consider this my nomination - and I've cc'd the
> IAB for that purpose)

Thanks for nominating them.  We considered only those that were willing.
I know I personally wrote both of them and asked them to please consider
putting their names forward again.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 18:40:59 -0400

> FYI, I wasn't "trying" for anything (and am a bit confused).

Apologies - that was a bit snarky - even for me.   However you basically 
said "the more the merrier" which didn't answer the question I asked.  
So deflection.  The paragraph below actually does answer what I asked - 
(To paraphrase: "Not yet - but wait for it") but unfortunately does not 
comfort my concerns.

> nominations you have, it will end up changing the candidate pool.

If halfway through the period you send another reminder announcement you 
might also end up changing the candidate pool - what's your point?  
Also, I did not indicate any requirement to state "we have X 
nominations, but we need Y more".

In fact the original announcement was sent on the 16th of April and no 
follow up has been made even though that's best practice for such 
solicitations.

>   If
> possible).

Sorry - I'm having problems buying this argument.  This is a chair for a 
limited time/specific goal task group who is supposed to have no plenary 
authority, and no role other than cat herder and participant.   I'm 
pretty sure that anyone in the category you describe probably wouldn't 
be volunteering in any case.

>   If the number seems sufficiently large, then they may not

Again, this is not a selection for an IESG position, nor is it a job 
that anyone really wants - but it's a job that needs to be done.  The 
IAB should be actively recruiting a capable candidate rather than just 
waiting for them to present themselves.  The criteria provided by the 
community was clear and the set of folks that meet that criteria are 
somewhat finite.   If at this point in time you have say 2 candidates, 
and the IAB feels neither is capable you should either be twisting arms 
or getting someone like a past IETF chair or two to twist arms.

I'm not actually sure how we got into a nomcom-like selection process 
here.   This probably would have made a lot more sense being done the 
way the ISOC selects the Nomcom chair.

> https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2020/iab-minutes-2020-04-08/

As I indicated I'll be pretty disappointed in the IAB if we get to the 
same point of "re-opening" nominations then dismissing candidates as we 
did previously.     If we follow the same relative time line as last 
time, we'll get a new chair somewhere around the end of June or 
beginning of July.   (+2 weeks for more candidates, +2 weeks for public 
comment, +2-3 weeks until an announcement is made).

Mike

---

From: Michael StJohns <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 May 2020 18:47:08 -0400

On 5/9/2020 4:01 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Good morning, Mike.
>
>> I'm sure it wouldn't be all that hard to announce this as an interim 
>> of some sort.  And yes, the calendar invite would be helpful.
>
> The last meeting did get announced both on the -Announce list and 
> here.   See the archives from the 30th of April.  I’ll be happy to 
> send out the calendar invite so long as nobody objects.  The next 
> meeting will be announced shortly in a similar fashion.  All are welcome.

The context was in the response of "there's a technical problem with 
doing this"  hence - make it a fake WG with an interim as community 
guidance was IAB program masquerading as a WG like thing.   With respect 
to the calendar invite - all I want is that this (and all future 
sessions) be added to the general IETF calendar which includes WG 
meetings and appears magically in my calendar without having to remember 
to click on something.  With the large number of virtual meetings taking 
place, this is really the only sane way of managing things.   The 
calendar invite would be helpful, but manual, but way too easy to miss 
if no one is looking for it.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Second, I really hate the form of this survey.   Many of these 
>>>> topics are important - just not right now.  I suggested and now 
>>>> reiterate a 1-5 scale of "Work on now" to "defer until later" 
>>>>  rather than "not important" to "very important".  For the purposes 
>>>> of the current form, "not important" means "let's defer" and 
>>>> "important" means "lets talk about it".
>>> Next time around I will happily tap you to work with me to design 
>>> the survey.  I am sorry if it felt like a push poll to you. When 
>>> others are answering, please keep in mind the goal is just to figure 
>>> out what to talk about for one meeting.
>>
>> "let's wait" prior to you sending out the survey?   With respect to 
>> the questions, I do understand that you took them from the list, but 
>> they made me cringe.
>

Thanks - Mike