From nobody Tue Feb 17 06:37:43 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838331A8992 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 64LqRBjN2XpH for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com (mail-pa0-f47.google.com [209.85.220.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8C6D1A19F8 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by padfb1 with SMTP id fb1so6730790pad.8 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ryPnwdrmeSKiMfckMI5v3PNuVlnhJzL0vC9YHXwNuHw=; b=RjWI6HJmZL3pKDpbpYqVavzzqA/O/RR/F8LNQB3gMIvW3T9L1tRm8T+rkpA6LiJ8dA 622kdS6h2yufy2x5kvpwo7SwdYKumoGF4m87N9/gHmyeK7oVg/TEw7zYEpepfIfsRp2B Op1RxS+M5/+Isu/4Pu1qCljEzdnf/3UVyRtGDoIAU6Ml46SJpK+gjI8ibgY1EyxUqLFa tm7D/l9PxCQIA+DWrxaf/S0wt8kpRoiN+gtgqzhP3LIwPBMxEvFi4c7NMjKXNwBrIiQ5 ricyif5vgz5pHoJAAUFRpTMvtRNl0dzXFpXR64iugpB+Fw80yU2CCQvG0TPsBP/jje1R 4SqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.129.139 with SMTP id nw11mr50314291pab.69.1424183858382; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.73.229 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 06:37:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:37:38 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Fw: Interim meetings - changing the way we work From: Alia Atlas To: "t.petch" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11364398f94e59050f49a445 Archived-At: Cc: "nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Adrian Farrel , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:37:41 -0000 --001a11364398f94e59050f49a445 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] Hi Tom, Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, minutes were posted to the mailing list. NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as agenda and slides being posted to the list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. Regards, Alia On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch wrote: > Adrian, Alia > > Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I > became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I > posted to the main IETF list recently). > > Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the > Routing > Area, > 2014-12-18 teas > 2014-12-15 bier > 2014-10-21 nvo3 > > These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing List > Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' > minutes, in one case even adding > > 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' > > Thoughts? > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "t.p." > To: "ietf" > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM > Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work > > > > There has been a marked increase in the number of interim meetings. > > Using > > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html > > as a guide, there were > > 18 in 2011 > > 35 in 2012 > > 45 in 2013 > > 84 in 2014 > > 13 in January 2015 alone. > > > > With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering some > > of our practices historic. > > > > Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the IETF > > web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG > > provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a > > cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other times > > not. > > > > Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did > produce > > slides or recordings and so presumably happened. > > > > Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 > > cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue > > Sheets?). > > > > Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and > > Attendees. > > > > The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, 14 > > more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. > > > > What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, increasingly > the > > only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer > > provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, > they > > may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a discussion > > of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the > issue > > or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option 3 > so > > it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the earlier > > meeting. > > > > Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as posts > to > > a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their > view > > was. > > > > Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a future > > date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what options > > were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be > > impossible. > > > > A post in another thread recently said > > > > > I do think that the increased significance of meetings > > > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about > > > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical > > > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize > > > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows > > > work down. > > > > Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree with > > the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to > > develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at > > large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived at > > by whom. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > --001a11364398f94e59050f49a445 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for pointing these out.=C2=A0 BIE= R was not an official IETF interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF<= /div>
and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF.=C2=A0 Nonetheles= s, minutes were posted to the mailing list.

NVO3 h= as its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as agenda and = slides being posted to the
list beforehand.=C2=A0 I agree that th= ey also should be uploaded to the Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing = the NVO3
chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that.<= /div>

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM,= t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
Adrian, Alia

Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).

Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 teas
2014-12-15 bier
2014-10-21 nvo3

These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing List Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Dr= aft'
minutes, in one case even adding

'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week'
Thoughts?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.p." <daedul= us@btconnect.com>
To: "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org= >
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work


> There has been a marked increase in the number of=C2=A0 interim meetin= gs.
> Using
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html
> as a guide, there were
> 18 in 2011
> 35 in 2012
> 45 in 2013
> 84 in 2014
> 13 in January 2015 alone.
>
> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering some=
> of our practices historic.
>
> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the IETF=
> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings.=C2=A0 Perhaps the WG<= br> > provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a
> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other times > not.
>
> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did
produce
> slides or recordings and so presumably happened.
>
> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13
> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue
> Sheets?).
>
> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and
> Attendees.
>
> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, 14 > more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times.
>
> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, increasingly the
> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer > provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus.=C2=A0 For example= ,
they
> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a discussion=
> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the
issue
> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option 3 so
> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the earlier=
> meeting.
>
> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as posts<= br> to
> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their view
> was.
>
> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a future<= br> > date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what options=
> were discussed and=C2=A0 how rough the consensus was, well, it may be<= br> > impossible.
>
> A post in another thread recently said
>
> > I do think that the increased significance of meetings
> > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about
> > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical
> > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize
> > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows
> > work down.
>
> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree with<= br> > the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to > develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at > large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived at=
> by whom.
>
> Tom Petch
>


--001a11364398f94e59050f49a445-- From nobody Tue Feb 17 07:18:04 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907101A89EF for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ove1Rv74JzQ3 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f48.google.com (mail-pa0-f48.google.com [209.85.220.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 675571A873A for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:29 -0800 (PST) Received: by pabrd3 with SMTP id rd3so6956939pab.1 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=xkOMqiiHYpvRJ7wvcd916FcBbPucDgeMIccVrWvfhVw=; b=bkoaYrcEWR0peqmKKE/EggVh2XiCsdWeXoEKa7fNCmfzcNXVR0jFIyDo0dzOFVqZTL gfRZw07ErWQo1ZAhoYw16+ZY2u6JQkRQcJ/G9yOICfdK2dGmd3qxpoI8AD1Dyy/8FyRL K8fCzX7tbzic/dQULPOqaWngm7Co9MGnfBbNsQ8+SQMGQuDXqdvi5SJmlB4F1R35oIjd iVcnGQWYcphPyU0P6OuoFS6qxdtQfjKZxKKnzeOOsyzVCryH1xWW/BOOTus2UjgvQF1x V5cDs8SZpfy7Ft4BgTLSvKruPsCicNyk6RXJMqsf+f7AKRbmGeWS6CZCmIgu5+OjSZHv 1LOw== X-Received: by 10.68.109.195 with SMTP id hu3mr50606037pbb.84.1424186068082; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:1fd:d45c:44c1:92a2? ([2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:1fd:d45c:44c1:92a2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 9sm17979342pdg.38.2015.02.17.07.14.26 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:27 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CA5EA3DB-B2B1-481D-8340-80C529207895" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work From: Sam Aldrin In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:14:25 -0800 Message-Id: <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> To: Alia Atlas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:18:03 -0800 Cc: "nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Adrian Farrel , "t.petch" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:14:32 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CA5EA3DB-B2B1-481D-8340-80C529207895 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Tom and Alia, In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, = promptly. However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were = missing. I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list = (>) Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well = () Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. cheers -sam > On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas wrote: >=20 > [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >=20 > Hi Tom, >=20 > Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF interim = - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF > and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, minutes = were posted to the mailing list. >=20 > NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as = agenda and slides being posted to the > list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the = Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 > chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >=20 > Regards, > Alia >=20 > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > wrote: > Adrian, Alia >=20 > Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I > became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I > posted to the main IETF list recently). >=20 > Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the > Routing > Area, > 2014-12-18 teas > 2014-12-15 bier > 2014-10-21 nvo3 >=20 > These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing = List > Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' > minutes, in one case even adding >=20 > 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Tom Petch >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "t.p." > > To: "ietf" > > Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM > Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >=20 >=20 > > There has been a marked increase in the number of interim meetings. > > Using > > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html = > > as a guide, there were > > 18 in 2011 > > 35 in 2012 > > 45 in 2013 > > 84 in 2014 > > 13 in January 2015 alone. > > > > With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering = some > > of our practices historic. > > > > Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the = IETF > > web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG > > provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a > > cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other times > > not. > > > > Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did > produce > > slides or recordings and so presumably happened. > > > > Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 > > cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue > > Sheets?). > > > > Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and > > Attendees. > > > > The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, 14 > > more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. > > > > What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, increasingly > the > > only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer > > provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, > they > > may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a = discussion > > of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the > issue > > or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option 3 > so > > it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the = earlier > > meeting. > > > > Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as = posts > to > > a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their > view > > was. > > > > Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a = future > > date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what = options > > were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be > > impossible. > > > > A post in another thread recently said > > > > > I do think that the increased significance of meetings > > > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about > > > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical > > > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize > > > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows > > > work down. > > > > Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree = with > > the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to > > develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at > > large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived = at > > by whom. > > > > Tom Petch > > >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_CA5EA3DB-B2B1-481D-8340-80C529207895 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi Tom and Alia,

In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and = agenda, promptly.
However, I see minutes for = 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were missing.
I = did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html= >)
Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to = mailing list as well (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html= )

Do not = remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part.
Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded.

cheers
-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas = <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

[Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for pointing these out.  = BIER was not an official IETF interim - it was a follow-on meeting from = a BoF
and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual = BoF.  Nonetheless, minutes were posted to the mailing = list.

NVO3 has = its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as agenda and = slides being posted to the
list beforehand.  I = agree that they also should be uploaded to the Meeting Materials tool = and am cc'ing the NVO3
chairs and secretary so that = they can check up on that.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, = Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
Adrian, Alia

Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).

Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 teas
2014-12-15 bier
2014-10-21 nvo3

These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing = List
Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft'
minutes, in one case even adding

'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week'

Thoughts?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work


> There has been a marked increase in the number of  interim = meetings.
> Using
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html
> as a guide, there were
> 18 in 2011
> 35 in 2012
> 45 in 2013
> 84 in 2014
> 13 in January 2015 alone.
>
> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering = some
> of our practices historic.
>
> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the = IETF
> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings.  Perhaps the = WG
> provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a
> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other = times
> not.
>
> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did
produce
> slides or recordings and so presumably happened.
>
> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in = 13
> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue
> Sheets?).
>
> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and
> Attendees.
>
> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, = 14
> more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times.
>
> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, = increasingly
the
> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no = longer
> provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus.  For = example,
they
> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a = discussion
> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what = the
issue
> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option = 3
so
> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the = earlier
> meeting.
>
> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as = posts
to
> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong = their
view
> was.
>
> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a = future
> date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what = options
> were discussed and  how rough the consensus was, well, it may = be
> impossible.
>
> A post in another thread recently said
>
> > I do think that the increased significance of meetings
> > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about
> > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical
> > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize
> > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows
> > work down.
>
> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree = with
> the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend = to
> develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world = at
> large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived = at
> by whom.
>
> Tom Petch
>



= --Apple-Mail=_CA5EA3DB-B2B1-481D-8340-80C529207895-- From nobody Tue Feb 17 07:26:17 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176481A8A08 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tvH6HKsvwiGU for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C6A1A89C5 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by paceu11 with SMTP id eu11so7023706pac.7 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=l5DnKVhZSHb2JmInLTJgk5ZHhA4jksq3MKa0h6iNJGU=; b=CtfUrYhgbKK83Ssmyih/pBamdI8kWawfH9PdjHizRQe66KDzYWZaHMWXNz9+qX7Isx Ys0JxW3tfbFvxZOPWDY3okdXaen52LvJLDDjmrrHMKxoD5hLw8xglbJ4nNTzxvZBZqUu x6C6TWqXxTT11NU3McrMs4s3+TNxLJmW4aQH10tT00Rd4uGEdrLppsSdVO/yHH31p3u6 2zs5dRdtZ7/aE9ZRUTFFMNwAdwIfY+cT/ND1JGcAeBuAXfrIV1HwQe8pZFCIh0q0IEN0 whKHmOxkzD+m5qOMC8eGx5xVCeRMUIYc/54WgMxsJ3+5Ot8QNtehVFjZTg/WKEYp6Frg Zl5A== X-Received: by 10.66.158.66 with SMTP id ws2mr37879605pab.37.1424186768851; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.15] (c-107-3-154-60.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [107.3.154.60]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y2sm18016025pdm.31.2015.02.17.07.26.07 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:08 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_24D9E10B-43F3-4C11-9A00-986CAE097166" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work From: Sam Aldrin In-Reply-To: <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:26:06 -0800 Message-Id: <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> To: Alia Atlas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: "nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org" , Adrian Farrel , "t.petch" , "routing-discussion@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:26:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_24D9E10B-43F3-4C11-9A00-986CAE097166 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 They are now uploaded. -sam > On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: >=20 > Hi Tom and Alia, >=20 > In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, = promptly. > However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were = missing. > I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list = (>) > Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well = () >=20 > Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. > Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. >=20 > cheers > -sam >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: >>=20 >> [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >>=20 >> Hi Tom, >>=20 >> Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF interim = - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF >> and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, = minutes were posted to the mailing list. >>=20 >> NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as = agenda and slides being posted to the >> list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the = Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 >> chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Alia >>=20 >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > wrote: >> Adrian, Alia >>=20 >> Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I >> became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I >> posted to the main IETF list recently). >>=20 >> Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the >> Routing >> Area, >> 2014-12-18 teas >> 2014-12-15 bier >> 2014-10-21 nvo3 >>=20 >> These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing = List >> Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' >> minutes, in one case even adding >>=20 >> 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >>=20 >> Thoughts? >>=20 >> Tom Petch >>=20 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "t.p." > >> To: "ietf" > >> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM >> Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >>=20 >>=20 >> > There has been a marked increase in the number of interim = meetings. >> > Using >> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html = >> > as a guide, there were >> > 18 in 2011 >> > 35 in 2012 >> > 45 in 2013 >> > 84 in 2014 >> > 13 in January 2015 alone. >> > >> > With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering = some >> > of our practices historic. >> > >> > Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the = IETF >> > web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG >> > provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a >> > cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other = times >> > not. >> > >> > Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did >> produce >> > slides or recordings and so presumably happened. >> > >> > Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 >> > cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue >> > Sheets?). >> > >> > Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and >> > Attendees. >> > >> > The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, = 14 >> > more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. >> > >> > What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, = increasingly >> the >> > only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer >> > provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, >> they >> > may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a = discussion >> > of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the >> issue >> > or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option = 3 >> so >> > it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the = earlier >> > meeting. >> > >> > Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as = posts >> to >> > a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their >> view >> > was. >> > >> > Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a = future >> > date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what = options >> > were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be >> > impossible. >> > >> > A post in another thread recently said >> > >> > > I do think that the increased significance of meetings >> > > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about >> > > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical >> > > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize >> > > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows >> > > work down. >> > >> > Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree = with >> > the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to >> > develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at >> > large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived = at >> > by whom. >> > >> > Tom Petch >> > >>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_24D9E10B-43F3-4C11-9A00-986CAE097166 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 They are now uploaded.

-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin = <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom and = Alia,

In regards to = NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, promptly.
However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 = were missing.
I did send out the draft minutes for = 10/21/14 to the mailing list (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html= >)
Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to = mailing list as well (<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html= )

Do not = remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part.
Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded.

cheers
-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas = <akatlas@gmail.com> wrote:

[Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for pointing these out.  = BIER was not an official IETF interim - it was a follow-on meeting from = a BoF
and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual = BoF.  Nonetheless, minutes were posted to the mailing = list.

NVO3 has = its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as agenda and = slides being posted to the
list beforehand.  I = agree that they also should be uploaded to the Meeting Materials tool = and am cc'ing the NVO3
chairs and secretary so that = they can check up on that.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, = Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:
Adrian, Alia

Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).

Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 teas
2014-12-15 bier
2014-10-21 nvo3

These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing = List
Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft'
minutes, in one case even adding

'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week'

Thoughts?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com>
To: "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work


> There has been a marked increase in the number of  interim = meetings.
> Using
> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html
> as a guide, there were
> 18 in 2011
> 35 in 2012
> 45 in 2013
> 84 in 2014
> 13 in January 2015 alone.
>
> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering = some
> of our practices historic.
>
> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the = IETF
> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings.  Perhaps the = WG
> provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a
> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other = times
> not.
>
> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did
produce
> slides or recordings and so presumably happened.
>
> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in = 13
> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue
> Sheets?).
>
> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and
> Attendees.
>
> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, = 14
> more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times.
>
> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, = increasingly
the
> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no = longer
> provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus.  For = example,
they
> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a = discussion
> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what = the
issue
> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option = 3
so
> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the = earlier
> meeting.
>
> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as = posts
to
> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong = their
view
> was.
>
> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a = future
> date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what = options
> were discussed and  how rough the consensus was, well, it may = be
> impossible.
>
> A post in another thread recently said
>
> > I do think that the increased significance of meetings
> > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about
> > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical
> > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize
> > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows
> > work down.
>
> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree = with
> the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend = to
> develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world = at
> large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived = at
> by whom.
>
> Tom Petch
>




= --Apple-Mail=_24D9E10B-43F3-4C11-9A00-986CAE097166-- From nobody Tue Feb 17 10:22:22 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EC521A8F40 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:22:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fX20T_sGDDf for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:22:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0795.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::795]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2DC11A8F3E for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:22:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc6 (81.151.167.59) by AM3PR07MB370.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.18; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:21:55 +0000 Message-ID: <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Sam Aldrin , Alia Atlas References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:19:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [81.151.167.59] X-ClientProxiedBy: DB3PR05CA0039.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.41.167) To AM3PR07MB370.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.242.109.144) Authentication-Results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR07MB370; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005003); SRVR:AM3PR07MB370; X-Forefront-PRVS: 0490BBA1F0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377424004)(13464003)(51914003)(24454002)(377454003)(479174004)(51704005)(52604005)(50226001)(44736004)(87976001)(62236002)(62966003)(77156002)(33646002)(19580395003)(47776003)(92566002)(15975445007)(40100003)(116806002)(76176999)(42186005)(84392001)(66066001)(61296003)(77096005)(50986999)(44716002)(81686999)(14496001)(19273905006)(50466002)(19580405001)(19300405004)(122386002)(46102003)(93886004)(23676002)(86362001)(74416001)(7726001)(562404015)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:AM3PR07MB370; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM3PR07MB370; X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2015 18:21:55.2711 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM3PR07MB370 Archived-At: Cc: nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:22:19 -0000 Sam Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART reviewer (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two later to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months later). I commented earlier that only about a quarter of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply to other working group meetings." I wonder if this is sustainable given the explosive growth in Interim Meetings, especially when a single WG holds many such between the IETF Meetings. Which brings me to 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of attendees 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees As I say, about three quarters of the Interim Meetings scheduled for 2014 would appear not to meet the requirements for them (so I am not picking on nvo3:-) Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Aldrin" To: "Alia Atlas" Cc: "t.petch" ; "Adrian Farrel" ; ; Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM They are now uploaded. -sam > On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: > > Hi Tom and Alia, > > In regards to NVo3, I’ve been posting minutes and agenda, promptly. > However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were missing. > I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list (>) > Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well () > > Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. > Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. > > cheers > -sam >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: >> >> [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >> >> Hi Tom, >> >> Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF >> and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, minutes were posted to the mailing list. >> >> NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as agenda and slides being posted to the >> list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 >> chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >> >> Regards, >> Alia >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > wrote: >> Adrian, Alia >> >> Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I >> became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I >> posted to the main IETF list recently). >> >> Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the >> Routing >> Area, >> 2014-12-18 teas >> 2014-12-15 bier >> 2014-10-21 nvo3 >> >> These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing List >> Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' >> minutes, in one case even adding >> >> 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Tom Petch >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "t.p." > >> To: "ietf" > >> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM >> Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >> >> >> > There has been a marked increase in the number of interim meetings. >> > Using >> > http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html >> > as a guide, there were >> > 18 in 2011 >> > 35 in 2012 >> > 45 in 2013 >> > 84 in 2014 >> > 13 in January 2015 alone. >> > >> > With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering some >> > of our practices historic. >> > >> > Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the IETF >> > web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG >> > provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a >> > cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other times >> > not. >> > >> > Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did >> produce >> > slides or recordings and so presumably happened. >> > >> > Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 >> > cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue >> > Sheets?). >> > >> > Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and >> > Attendees. >> > >> > The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, 14 >> > more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. >> > >> > What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, increasingly >> the >> > only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer >> > provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, >> they >> > may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a discussion >> > of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the >> issue >> > or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option 3 >> so >> > it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the earlier >> > meeting. >> > >> > Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as posts >> to >> > a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their >> view >> > was. >> > >> > Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a future >> > date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what options >> > were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be >> > impossible. >> > >> > A post in another thread recently said >> > >> > > I do think that the increased significance of meetings >> > > in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about >> > > things like nomcom but about significance to our technical >> > > work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize >> > > people who can't come to meetings and because it slows >> > > work down. >> > >> > Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree with >> > the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to >> > develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at >> > large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived at >> > by whom. >> > >> > Tom Petch >> > >> >> > From nobody Tue Feb 17 11:02:47 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39061A907C for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IWwiakBkfEzM for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C65791A8F35 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id i13so27578095qae.10 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=75Pj1/9g/RpJi5DGP2PgwPdyo0AcyqnD9bTqpL9mJeI=; b=MaP7sqGaN/maAUNi6kOVqPtuauwTYA9aNF8zTHUJyimh4VN+dgSwxwbZfhSg4GC/Zs 3MW7+o10C8jVBD362oPx5O19XBuFn0fuxiSO4OqNZMcuptDJuS7qyS+zOV4AalolrVtf p0moo2CCUFaawnS5PBVyHp+WeB85TI12QL25cyZepBHeH2VqYQ5SGIDgs7USp89U4llw nw3eE+54TJzAIQ/EzP5K4r/wqqaHFXVviBNufEx0qGK5u6vUuDsJ8DLHkG2/l4385YvL XpK6Id4Gw8lD9u1574VNLsYhh34u3NQ3guG1pXHUXlJA2DKgwZuyhG583MmOg0iKJwUH rPjg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQ+DesNywT6xlVmFgoDegW3WDbLCX4gGLOaDCJnbUIw8EjN5dVmCl/YSNN3nfxT+DwIT4M X-Received: by 10.140.108.9 with SMTP id i9mr2455436qgf.73.1424199755079; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from desolation-2.local (68-115-154-254.static.hckr.nc.charter.com. [68.115.154.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t8sm13358099qga.24.2015.02.17.11.02.34 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:02:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54E39048.6080209@queuefull.net> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:02:32 -0500 From: Benson Schliesser User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "t.petch" Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> In-Reply-To: <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: Cc: Sam Aldrin , nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:02:45 -0000 Hi, Tom - t.petch wrote: > Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list > serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART > reviewer > (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two later > to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the > proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months > later). We agree. As Sam indicated, the lack of proceedings of our Oct-2014 meeting was an oversight. I appreciate that Sam fixed the problem quickly - thanks, Sam. > I commented earlier that only about a quarter > of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. > > "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance > notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply to > other working group meetings." I don't have any insight on overall statistics, whether the 25% number is accurate etc. But based on my experience chairing NVO3 it seems like a fairly easy expectation to meet. Anything less than 100% should be considered a problem. We announce the meeting in advance, post the access logistics (e.g. WebEx) to the mailing list, publish an agenda, upload slides, take minutes and blue sheets during the meeting, and upload them to the meeting materials manager tool. These are literally the same steps that we follow for a regular meeting, except that the virtual logistics (e.g. WebEx) may be different. > 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of > attendees > 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees Attendee lists / blue sheets are not published in meeting minutes for regular meetings, and I don't see why interim meetings should be any different. Collecting the "blue sheets" from a virtual interim is a bit of a tricky problem, but regardless of how the names are collected I think the correct way to memorialize them is to give them to the secretariat - not publish them in the minutes. I recall that until recently the blue sheets had to be emailed to the secretariat. But at some point recently the meeting materials manager tool was upgraded to include a "bluesheets" material type. Cheers, -Benson From nobody Tue Feb 17 11:09:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E0381A9075 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TioQ_WZW8H0f for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com (mail-pd0-f181.google.com [209.85.192.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DAF261A9073 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: by pdjy10 with SMTP id y10so45663383pdj.6 for ; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=+8JdBN0Gmo9oS3OCS68PqF324HUL/MjwTgVdvvVCj/c=; b=E0IrDm3HYYa1HSlfWHPihpzCdGhmnOqzsFFcmORX5BIfflpLa3jhRBonofOzBZWYBI do3c5lbTbcEAmxtxDWIxpcAKqz7zbLnl9iybMuX3K4zW5Wzlzl4HuAbvCX7yVIMp2D/6 bw3NL7nvFILLqfjwNmosCHn9v2+BSMeEWRK5e1K8o1l+qvKP87lQhvtO7ucrF5kCFlMT VLF12G12VQBgGRNk36hvcCEjlo0OgsECRg8rNC2rs1wYt+tzD5jFMbCgsrB1MNHHr3DH JNKa1woVIUKt2lwd5fqlmo/xJaWZ9xs+LTnILnKArORA9GhVpJhRkJ9V9uyVRpbn+hqW QF/g== X-Received: by 10.66.66.166 with SMTP id g6mr9396371pat.88.1424200193522; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:71b4:9295:18a8:10ba? ([2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:71b4:9295:18a8:10ba]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cz1sm18432940pdb.32.2015.02.17.11.09.51 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_39C5112A-3AC6-4762-8DB3-33AD0517197E" From: Sam Aldrin X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:09:50 -0800 Message-Id: References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> To: "t.petch" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: Cc: nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:09:57 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_39C5112A-3AC6-4762-8DB3-33AD0517197E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Tom inline for my comments. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:19 AM, t.petch wrote: >=20 > Sam >=20 > Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list > serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART > reviewer > (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two = later > to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the > proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months > later). >=20 > I commented earlier that only about a quarter > of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. >=20 > "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance > notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply = to > other working group meetings." >=20 > I wonder if this is sustainable given the explosive growth in Interim > Meetings, especially when a single WG holds many such between the IETF > Meetings. Which brings me to >=20 > 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of > attendees In regards to attendees list, neither does the F2F meeting minutes = capture that. The list of attendees are documented as part of Blue = sheet. Initially, the virtual meeting minutes did capture attendees list, but = after discussing with Chairs, they were deliberately not added. Two reasons - Difficult to capture list of attendees on a virtual meeting (lot of = folks are being missed) - The list of attendees were being captured on virtual blue sheet, which = we employed in the recent interims. = (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart = ) If pdf is yuk, then you might indicate to tools folks not to allow = pdf=E2=80=99s. FWIW, had some difficulty in generating clean formatted = plain text. > 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees Same reason as above. >=20 > As I say, about three quarters of the Interim Meetings scheduled for > 2014 would appear not to meet the requirements for them (so I am not > picking on nvo3:-) As we are talking about process, here is my gripe about it. (Not = directed at you) There are little or no volunteers to take notes/jabber.=20 Whoever is taking is doing a great favor to the IETF community.=20 Please be appreciative of the effort and not to wrap this effort in = process quagmire. If the process is that important, do change the rules to ensure WG = meeting is held only if so and so following conditions are met. I = haven=E2=80=99t seen one for minutes, yet. -sam >=20 > Tom Petch >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Aldrin" > To: "Alia Atlas" > Cc: "t.petch" ; "Adrian Farrel" > ; ; > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM >=20 > They are now uploaded. >=20 > -sam >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin = wrote: >>=20 >> Hi Tom and Alia, >>=20 >> In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, = promptly. >> However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were > missing. >> I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list > ( >) >> Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well > ( ) >>=20 >> Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. >> Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. >>=20 >> cheers >> -sam >>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: >>>=20 >>> [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >>>=20 >>> Hi Tom, >>>=20 >>> Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF > interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF >>> and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, > minutes were posted to the mailing list. >>>=20 >>> NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well = as > agenda and slides being posted to the >>> list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the > Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 >>> chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>> Alia >>>=20 >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > wrote: >>> Adrian, Alia >>>=20 >>> Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I >>> became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I >>> posted to the main IETF list recently). >>>=20 >>> Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the >>> Routing >>> Area, >>> 2014-12-18 teas >>> 2014-12-15 bier >>> 2014-10-21 nvo3 >>>=20 >>> These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing > List >>> Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' >>> minutes, in one case even adding >>>=20 >>> 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >>>=20 >>> Thoughts? >>>=20 >>> Tom Petch >>>=20 >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "t.p." > >>> To: "ietf" > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM >>> Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>> There has been a marked increase in the number of interim > meetings. >>>> Using >>>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html > >>>> as a guide, there were >>>> 18 in 2011 >>>> 35 in 2012 >>>> 45 in 2013 >>>> 84 in 2014 >>>> 13 in January 2015 alone. >>>>=20 >>>> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering > some >>>> of our practices historic. >>>>=20 >>>> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the > IETF >>>> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG >>>> provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a >>>> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other > times >>>> not. >>>>=20 >>>> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did >>> produce >>>> slides or recordings and so presumably happened. >>>>=20 >>>> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 >>>> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue >>>> Sheets?). >>>>=20 >>>> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and >>>> Attendees. >>>>=20 >>>> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, > 14 >>>> more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. >>>>=20 >>>> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, > increasingly >>> the >>>> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer >>>> provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, >>> they >>>> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a > discussion >>>> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the >>> issue >>>> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option > 3 >>> so >>>> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the > earlier >>>> meeting. >>>>=20 >>>> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as > posts >>> to >>>> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their >>> view >>>> was. >>>>=20 >>>> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a > future >>>> date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what > options >>>> were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be >>>> impossible. >>>>=20 >>>> A post in another thread recently said >>>>=20 >>>>> I do think that the increased significance of meetings >>>>> in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about >>>>> things like nomcom but about significance to our technical >>>>> work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize >>>>> people who can't come to meetings and because it slows >>>>> work down. >>>>=20 >>>> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree > with >>>> the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to >>>> develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at >>>> large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived > at >>>> by whom. >>>>=20 >>>> Tom Petch >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_39C5112A-3AC6-4762-8DB3-33AD0517197E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Tom

inline = for my comments.
On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:19 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>= wrote:

Sam

Thanks for the uploads. =   While having materials on the WG list
serves = the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART
reviewer
(not something I will ever be:-) wants = to look back a year or two later
to see how a decision was = arrived at, then having them on the
proceedings page makes = them easier to find (or even for me six months
later).

I commented earlier that only about a = quarter
of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I = understand them i.e.

"interim meetings are = subject to the same rules for advance
notification, = reporting, open participation, and process, which apply to
other working group meetings."

I = wonder if this is sustainable given the explosive growth in Interim
Meetings, especially when a single WG holds many such between = the IETF
Meetings.  Which brings me to

2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I = cannot see a list of
attendees

In regards to = attendees list, neither does the F2F meeting minutes capture that. The = list of attendees are documented as part of Blue = sheet.
Initially, the virtual meeting minutes did capture = attendees list, but after discussing with Chairs, they were deliberately = not added.
Two reasons
- Difficult to capture list = of attendees on a virtual meeting (lot of folks are being = missed)
- The list of attendees were being captured on virtual = blue sheet, which we employed in the recent interims. (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart)

If pdf is yuk, then you might indicate = to tools folks not to allow pdf=E2=80=99s. FWIW, had some difficulty in = generating clean formatted plain text.

2014-09-11= nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees

Same reason as = above.

As I say, about three quarters of the Interim = Meetings scheduled for
2014 would appear not to meet the = requirements for them (so I am not
picking on nvo3:-)

As we are = talking about process, here is my gripe about it. (Not directed at = you)
There are little or no volunteers to take = notes/jabber. 
Whoever is taking is doing a great favor = to the IETF community. 
Please be appreciative of the = effort and not to wrap this effort in process quagmire.
If the = process is that important, do change the rules to ensure WG meeting is = held only if so and so following conditions are met. I haven=E2=80=99t = seen one for minutes, yet.
</rant>

-sam

Tom Petch

----- = Original Message -----
From: "Sam Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Alia Atlas" = <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; "Adrian Farrel"
<adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <routing-discussion@ietf.org>;
<nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: = Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM

They are = now uploaded.

-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Tom and Alia,

In regards to = NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, promptly.
However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 = were
missing.
I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 = to the mailing list
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html=
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html= >>)
Agenda = for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html=
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html= >)

Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my = part.
Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded.

cheers
-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 = AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com
<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

[Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion]

Hi Tom,

Thanks = for pointing these out.  BIER was not an official IETF
interim - it was a follow-on = meeting from a BoF
and not yet chartered as = a WG nor a virtual BoF.  Nonetheless,
minutes were posted to the mailing = list.

NVO3 has its minutes going out = to the mailing list after - as well as
agenda and slides being posted to = the
list beforehand.  I agree that they also = should be uploaded to the
Meeting = Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3
chairs and = secretary so that they can check up on that.

Regards,
Alia

On = Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com
<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
Adrian, Alia

Looking for the = outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became = aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).

Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are = in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 = teas
2014-12-15 bier
2014-10-21 nvo3

These are not lists I normally follow but I = did look at the Mailing
List
Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or = 'Draft'
minutes, in one case even adding

'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this = week'

Thoughts?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message = -----
From: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com <mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>>
To: = "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org = <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Sent: Sunday, = February 15, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Interim meetings - = changing the way we work


There has been a marked = increase in the number of  interim
meetings.
Using
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html
<http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html>
as a guide, there = were
18 in 2011
35 in 2012
45 = in 2013
84 in 2014
13 in January 2015 = alone.

With them comes a change in the way = of working, perhaps rendering
some
of our practices = historic.

Of the 84 meetings listed for = 2014, 21 left no other trace on the
IETF
web site, no Agenda, no = Minutes, no Proceedings.  Perhaps the WG
provided no = materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a
cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, = other
times
not.

Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but = did
produce
slides or recordings and so presumably = happened.

Of the 57 that produced Minutes, = 18 produced no Agenda while in 13
cases, the Minutes = contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue
Sheets?).

Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of = Agenda, Minutes and
Attendees.

The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met = once,
14
more than once, with one = WG meeting 8 times.

What is more subjective = is that, with Virtual Interims,
increasingly
the
only = kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer
provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. =  For example,
they
may make greater use of = github so that the minutes record a
discussion
of options 1, 2 and 3 = for Issue 29 with no indication of what the
issue
or options are; a while later, they may record an update to = option
3
so
it = would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the
earlier
meeting.
Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense = as
posts
to
a = mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their
view
was.

Of course, we still have WG = Last Calls on the list but if at a
future
date, an AD or GenArt = reviewer wants to look back and see what
options
were discussed and =  how rough the consensus was, well, it may be
impossible.

A post in another = thread recently said

I do think that the increased significance of = meetings
in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking = about
things like nomcom but about significance to our = technical
work) is a problem, both because it tends to = marginalize
people who can't come to meetings and because = it slows
work down.

Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly = agree
with
the marginalisation, = that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to
develop an = in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at
large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was = arrived
at
by whom.
Tom Petch







= --Apple-Mail=_39C5112A-3AC6-4762-8DB3-33AD0517197E-- From nobody Wed Feb 18 03:55:57 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FBA01A87CE for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xuAVBFOya8Aa for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0711.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::711]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CB201A86EA for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc6 (81.151.167.59) by DBXPR07MB384.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.13.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.18; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:52:45 +0000 Message-ID: <038201d04b71$27c73a20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Benson Schliesser References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54E39048.6080209@queuefull.net> Subject: Re: Interim meetings - changing the way we work Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:24:15 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [81.151.167.59] X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR05CA0037.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.40.47) To DBXPR07MB384.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.13.152) Authentication-Results: queuefull.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005003); SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04916EA04C X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377424004)(51704005)(51914003)(24454002)(13464003)(377454003)(62966003)(61296003)(23676002)(76176999)(19580405001)(122386002)(19580395003)(50226001)(93886004)(50986999)(44736004)(87976001)(14496001)(84392001)(81686999)(77096005)(77156002)(110136001)(46102003)(33646002)(50466002)(40100003)(62236002)(44716002)(47776003)(92566002)(116806002)(66066001)(86362001)(42186005)(74416001)(7726001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2015 11:52:45.7667 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB384 Archived-At: Cc: Sam Aldrin , nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:55:55 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Benson Schliesser" To: "t.petch" Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:02 PM > Hi, Tom - > > t.petch wrote: > > Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list > > serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART > > reviewer > > (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two later > > to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the > > proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months > > later). > > We agree. As Sam indicated, the lack of proceedings of our Oct-2014 > meeting was an oversight. I appreciate that Sam fixed the problem > quickly - thanks, Sam. > > > I commented earlier that only about a quarter > > of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. > > > > "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance > > notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply to > > other working group meetings." > > I don't have any insight on overall statistics, whether the 25% number > is accurate etc. But based on my experience chairing NVO3 it seems like > a fairly easy expectation to meet. Anything less than 100% should be > considered a problem. The 25% figure is mine based on the 84 Interim Meetings listed on the IETF website for 2014 (there are a few RGs in amongst the WGs which I included, more by accident than design). I followed every link - WG, Agenda, Minutes, Proceedings - from the web page to see what was there, Agenda, Minutes, Attendee list or some other evidence of the meeting having happened (slides, recordings). I regarded 26 as complete (Agenda, Minutes, Attendee list) while 21 showed no sign of having happened; perhaps they did not (but I would value some sign of that on the website). The rest lacked something, usually an Agenda (without which, I understand some ADs have cancelled meetings!). So that is where my figures come from, pursuing as many of the 336 links as existed and to the extent that I can count, are accurate! I have commented on Attendee lists separately. Tom Petch > We announce the meeting in advance, post the access logistics (e.g. > WebEx) to the mailing list, publish an agenda, upload slides, take > minutes and blue sheets during the meeting, and upload them to the > meeting materials manager tool. These are literally the same steps that > we follow for a regular meeting, except that the virtual logistics (e.g. > WebEx) may be different. > > > 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of > > attendees > > 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees > > Attendee lists / blue sheets are not published in meeting minutes for > regular meetings, and I don't see why interim meetings should be any > different. Collecting the "blue sheets" from a virtual interim is a bit > of a tricky problem, but regardless of how the names are collected I > think the correct way to memorialize them is to give them to the > secretariat - not publish them in the minutes. > > I recall that until recently the blue sheets had to be emailed to the > secretariat. But at some point recently the meeting materials manager > tool was upgraded to include a "bluesheets" material type. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > > From nobody Wed Feb 18 03:55:59 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF0B1A86EA for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gh7uu6AcCPwj for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from emea01-am1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-am1on0711.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fe00::711]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 008031A8759 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 03:55:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from pc6 (81.151.167.59) by DBXPR07MB384.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.13.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.87.18; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:52:46 +0000 Message-ID: <038301d04b71$281b2680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Sam Aldrin References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Subject: Re: Interim meetings - attendee lists Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:40:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [81.151.167.59] X-ClientProxiedBy: DB4PR05CA0037.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com (25.160.40.47) To DBXPR07MB384.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (10.141.13.152) Authentication-Results: gmail.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; X-Microsoft-Antispam: UriScan:; X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-Microsoft-Antispam-PRVS: X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-Test: UriScan:; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(5005003); SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-Forefront-PRVS: 04916EA04C X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377424004)(479174004)(51704005)(52604005)(51914003)(24454002)(13464003)(377454003)(62966003)(61296003)(23676002)(76176999)(19580405001)(122386002)(19580395003)(50226001)(93886004)(50986999)(44736004)(87976001)(14496001)(84392001)(81686999)(77096005)(77156002)(1720100001)(110136001)(46102003)(19273905006)(33646002)(50466002)(40100003)(19300405004)(62236002)(44716002)(47776003)(92566002)(116806002)(66066001)(86362001)(15975445007)(42186005)(74416001)(7726001)(562404015)(563064011); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; H:pc6; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en; X-Exchange-Antispam-Report-CFA-Test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:DBXPR07MB384; X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Feb 2015 11:52:46.3135 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DBXPR07MB384 Archived-At: Cc: nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:55:57 -0000 Inline ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Aldrin" To: "t.petch" Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:09 PM Tom inline for my comments. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:19 AM, t.petch wrote: > > Sam > > Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list > serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART > reviewer > (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two later > to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the > proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months > later). > > I commented earlier that only about a quarter > of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. > > "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance > notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply to > other working group meetings." > > I wonder if this is sustainable given the explosive growth in Interim > Meetings, especially when a single WG holds many such between the IETF > Meetings. Which brings me to > > 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of > attendees In regards to attendees list, neither does the F2F meeting minutes capture that. The list of attendees are documented as part of Blue sheet. Initially, the virtual meeting minutes did capture attendees list, but after discussing with Chairs, they were deliberately not added. Two reasons - Difficult to capture list of attendees on a virtual meeting (lot of folks are being missed) - The list of attendees were being captured on virtual blue sheet, which we employed in the recent interims. (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart ) The topic of attendee lists has surfaced (as Blue Sheets) on the main IETF list, for example in April 2012. The impression I get is that there is obligation on the IETF to keep records if only against possible future legal actions. The 'Note Well' says "A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public." so a participant should not have an expectation of privacy. I don't see a need for them to be in the minutes but note that that is what most WG do; of the 14 WGs that held more than one Interim Meeting in 2014, lmap was the only other one never to have provided an attendee list. This probably needs clarifying for the IETF at large. Tom Petch If pdf is yuk, then you might indicate to tools folks not to allow pdf’ s. FWIW, had some difficulty in generating clean formatted plain text. > 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees Same reason as above. > > As I say, about three quarters of the Interim Meetings scheduled for > 2014 would appear not to meet the requirements for them (so I am not > picking on nvo3:-) As we are talking about process, here is my gripe about it. (Not directed at you) There are little or no volunteers to take notes/jabber. Whoever is taking is doing a great favor to the IETF community. Please be appreciative of the effort and not to wrap this effort in process quagmire. If the process is that important, do change the rules to ensure WG meeting is held only if so and so following conditions are met. I haven’ t seen one for minutes, yet. -sam > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Aldrin" > To: "Alia Atlas" > Cc: "t.petch" ; "Adrian Farrel" > ; ; > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM > > They are now uploaded. > > -sam >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin wrote: >> >> Hi Tom and Alia, >> >> In regards to NVo3, I’ve been posting minutes and agenda, promptly. >> However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were > missing. >> I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list > ( >) >> Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well > ( ) >> >> Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. >> Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. >> >> cheers >> -sam >>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas > wrote: >>> >>> [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >>> >>> Hi Tom, >>> >>> Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF > interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF >>> and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, > minutes were posted to the mailing list. >>> >>> NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well as > agenda and slides being posted to the >>> list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the > Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 >>> chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alia >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > wrote: >>> Adrian, Alia >>> >>> Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I >>> became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I >>> posted to the main IETF list recently). >>> >>> Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the >>> Routing >>> Area, >>> 2014-12-18 teas >>> 2014-12-15 bier >>> 2014-10-21 nvo3 >>> >>> These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing > List >>> Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' >>> minutes, in one case even adding >>> >>> 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Tom Petch >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "t.p." > >>> To: "ietf" > >>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM >>> Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >>> >>> >>>> There has been a marked increase in the number of interim > meetings. >>>> Using >>>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html > >>>> as a guide, there were >>>> 18 in 2011 >>>> 35 in 2012 >>>> 45 in 2013 >>>> 84 in 2014 >>>> 13 in January 2015 alone. >>>> >>>> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering > some >>>> of our practices historic. >>>> >>>> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the > IETF >>>> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG >>>> provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a >>>> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other > times >>>> not. >>>> >>>> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did >>> produce >>>> slides or recordings and so presumably happened. >>>> >>>> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 >>>> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue >>>> Sheets?). >>>> >>>> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and >>>> Attendees. >>>> >>>> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, > 14 >>>> more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. >>>> >>>> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, > increasingly >>> the >>>> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer >>>> provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, >>> they >>>> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a > discussion >>>> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the >>> issue >>>> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option > 3 >>> so >>>> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the > earlier >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as > posts >>> to >>>> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their >>> view >>>> was. >>>> >>>> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a > future >>>> date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what > options >>>> were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> A post in another thread recently said >>>> >>>>> I do think that the increased significance of meetings >>>>> in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about >>>>> things like nomcom but about significance to our technical >>>>> work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize >>>>> people who can't come to meetings and because it slows >>>>> work down. >>>> >>>> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree > with >>>> the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to >>>> develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at >>>> large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was arrived > at >>>> by whom. >>>> >>>> Tom Petch >>>> >>> >>> >> > > From nobody Wed Feb 18 11:55:01 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 288F91A011D for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:28:03 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kz6ZI2gD9g_C for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pd0-f182.google.com (mail-pd0-f182.google.com [209.85.192.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 896C61A00FB for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:58 -0800 (PST) Received: by pdjp10 with SMTP id p10so3284644pdj.3 for ; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=hoxzm1yMblNryupi3pGg2BA7MWKnWM0W0kym/8nTA4o=; b=CG1cpjaj46PZ8ojjxKn4ML/j8LFxOONviifhbowq/4HQ7YMbDlNc3H5jtPSxaFvP9V +lcGwy4tNSstZY5OSnDeGip01/2b0kflrh+6cODOKw+vYeimSGlhrjlolrjJCOj5Wkmg duHR5dlTH35CtGbimn41+WoiKkxc1z18uyTVYlC7vspu5slkIatMJYgACFsiL1PWzAuR 6itIVd3Cw1UOOsqwqqw8x03Lm6yIJBTr1DBb/ktW2tYyWSvPA/j3KD71fsxG2lXa18GN qYC9VORkVU2FWCXctFNrxlB/Kg7vDsTynOUXO+oV7S22SL+ZQAvmPoGdpEH6SPYr6VoY JqQA== X-Received: by 10.68.232.200 with SMTP id tq8mr1058966pbc.133.1424287677093; Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:e50f:244d:16e1:5ef0? ([2002:6b03:9a3c:e472:e50f:244d:16e1:5ef0]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm21566685pdo.0.2015.02.18.11.27.54 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Interim meetings - attendee lists Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3BC7E770-3AAE-457E-8718-34ABEC8D3E79" From: Sam Aldrin X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <038301d04b71$281b2680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:27:53 -0800 Message-Id: <628E6F06-9657-4C2B-AF4D-913AFA60F016@gmail.com> References: <006d01d04aad$c7630f60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4772D91E-0286-42FD-BF8C-417AFF63257A@gmail.com> <92EAC574-5D0F-4FA3-94AF-9E09385ED064@gmail.com> <025001d04ade$5b4ccf60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <038301d04b71$281b2680$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> To: "t.petch" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) Archived-At: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:54:57 -0800 Cc: nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Adrian Farrel , routing-discussion@ietf.org X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 19:28:03 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3BC7E770-3AAE-457E-8718-34ABEC8D3E79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Tom, Inline for my comments. > On Feb 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, t.petch wrote: >=20 > Inline >=20 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Aldrin" > > To: "t.petch" > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 7:09 PM >=20 >=20 > Tom >=20 > inline for my comments. >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:19 AM, t.petch wrote: >>=20 >> Sam >>=20 >> Thanks for the uploads. While having materials on the WG list >> serves the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART >> reviewer >> (not something I will ever be:-) wants to look back a year or two > later >> to see how a decision was arrived at, then having them on the >> proceedings page makes them easier to find (or even for me six months >> later). >>=20 >> I commented earlier that only about a quarter >> of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I understand them i.e. >>=20 >> "interim meetings are subject to the same rules for advance >> notification, reporting, open participation, and process, which apply > to >> other working group meetings." >>=20 >> I wonder if this is sustainable given the explosive growth in Interim >> Meetings, especially when a single WG holds many such between the = IETF >> Meetings. Which brings me to >>=20 >> 2014-10-02 nvo3 minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of >> attendees >=20 > In regards to attendees list, neither does the F2F meeting minutes > capture that. The list of attendees are documented as part of Blue > sheet. > Initially, the virtual meeting minutes did capture attendees list, but > after discussing with Chairs, they were deliberately not added. > Two reasons > - Difficult to capture list of attendees on a virtual meeting (lot of > folks are being missed) > - The list of attendees were being captured on virtual blue sheet, = which > we employed in the recent interims. > (http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart > >) >=20 > >=20 > The topic of attendee lists has surfaced (as Blue Sheets) on the main > IETF list, for example in April 2012. The impression I get is that > there is obligation on the IETF to keep records if only against = possible > future legal actions. >=20 > The 'Note Well' says >=20 > "A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio = and > video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the > public." >=20 > so a participant should not have an expectation of privacy. >=20 > I don't see a need for them to be in the minutes but note that that is > what most WG do; of the 14 WGs that held more than one Interim Meeting > in 2014, lmap was the only other one never to have provided an = attendee > list. >=20 > This probably needs clarifying for the IETF at large. %sam - I am by no means a lawyer or have position about privacy related = topics, but not sure if meeting minutes is the right place to document = attendee list. As blue sheets are used for that and not part of minutes of F2F mtg, may = be some guideline and clarification for IETF at large is needed, as you = mentioned. I like the idea of Etherpad for attendees to sign in and also the tools = now support upload of blue sheet. For NVo3, I=E2=80=99ll try to as gather as much data as I have, for the = past interims, and upload them to proceedings page. May be it is good idea to add a column for =E2=80=98Bluesheets=E2=80=99? = > -sam >=20 > Tom Petch >=20 > >=20 > If pdf is yuk, then you might indicate to tools folks not to allow = pdf=E2=80=99 > s. FWIW, had some difficulty in generating clean formatted plain text. >=20 >> 2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of attendees >=20 > Same reason as above. >>=20 >> As I say, about three quarters of the Interim Meetings scheduled for >> 2014 would appear not to meet the requirements for them (so I am not >> picking on nvo3:-) >=20 > As we are talking about process, here is my gripe about it. (Not > directed at you) > There are little or no volunteers to take notes/jabber. > Whoever is taking is doing a great favor to the IETF community. > Please be appreciative of the effort and not to wrap this effort in > process quagmire. > If the process is that important, do change the rules to ensure WG > meeting is held only if so and so following conditions are met. I = haven=E2=80=99 > t seen one for minutes, yet. > >=20 > -sam >>=20 >> Tom Petch >>=20 >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sam Aldrin" >> To: "Alia Atlas" >> Cc: "t.petch" ; "Adrian Farrel" >> ; ; >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM >>=20 >> They are now uploaded. >>=20 >> -sam >>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin > wrote: >>>=20 >>> Hi Tom and Alia, >>>=20 >>> In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and agenda, = promptly. >>> However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and agenda for 10/02/14 were >> missing. >>> I did send out the draft minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list >> (> >) >>> Agenda for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well >> (> ) >>>=20 >>> Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my part. >>> Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded. >>>=20 >>> cheers >>> -sam >>>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 AM, Alia Atlas > > wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> [Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion] >>>>=20 >>>> Hi Tom, >>>>=20 >>>> Thanks for pointing these out. BIER was not an official IETF >> interim - it was a follow-on meeting from a BoF >>>> and not yet chartered as a WG nor a virtual BoF. Nonetheless, >> minutes were posted to the mailing list. >>>>=20 >>>> NVO3 has its minutes going out to the mailing list after - as well > as >> agenda and slides being posted to the >>>> list beforehand. I agree that they also should be uploaded to the >> Meeting Materials tool and am cc'ing the NVO3 >>>> chairs and secretary so that they can check up on that. >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>> Alia >>>>=20 >>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:32 AM, t.petch > > wrote: >>>> Adrian, Alia >>>>=20 >>>> Looking for the outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, = I >>>> became aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I >>>> posted to the main IETF list recently). >>>>=20 >>>> Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are in the >>>> Routing >>>> Area, >>>> 2014-12-18 teas >>>> 2014-12-15 bier >>>> 2014-10-21 nvo3 >>>>=20 >>>> These are not lists I normally follow but I did look at the Mailing >> List >>>> Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or 'Draft' >>>> minutes, in one case even adding >>>>=20 >>>> 'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this week' >>>>=20 >>>> Thoughts? >>>>=20 >>>> Tom Petch >>>>=20 >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "t.p." > >>>> To: "ietf" > >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 1:57 PM >>>> Subject: Interim meetings - changing the way we work >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> There has been a marked increase in the number of interim >> meetings. >>>>> Using >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html >> >>>>> as a guide, there were >>>>> 18 in 2011 >>>>> 35 in 2012 >>>>> 45 in 2013 >>>>> 84 in 2014 >>>>> 13 in January 2015 alone. >>>>>=20 >>>>> With them comes a change in the way of working, perhaps rendering >> some >>>>> of our practices historic. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Of the 84 meetings listed for 2014, 21 left no other trace on the >> IETF >>>>> web site, no Agenda, no Minutes, no Proceedings. Perhaps the WG >>>>> provided no materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a >>>>> cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, other >> times >>>>> not. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but did >>>> produce >>>>> slides or recordings and so presumably happened. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Of the 57 that produced Minutes, 18 produced no Agenda while in 13 >>>>> cases, the Minutes contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue >>>>> Sheets?). >>>>>=20 >>>>> Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of Agenda, Minutes and >>>>> Attendees. >>>>>=20 >>>>> The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met once, >> 14 >>>>> more than once, with one WG meeting 8 times. >>>>>=20 >>>>> What is more subjective is that, with Virtual Interims, >> increasingly >>>> the >>>>> only kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no = longer >>>>> provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. For example, >>>> they >>>>> may make greater use of github so that the minutes record a >> discussion >>>>> of options 1, 2 and 3 for Issue 29 with no indication of what the >>>> issue >>>>> or options are; a while later, they may record an update to option >> 3 >>>> so >>>>> it would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the >> earlier >>>>> meeting. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense as >> posts >>>> to >>>>> a mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong = their >>>> view >>>>> was. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Of course, we still have WG Last Calls on the list but if at a >> future >>>>> date, an AD or GenArt reviewer wants to look back and see what >> options >>>>> were discussed and how rough the consensus was, well, it may be >>>>> impossible. >>>>>=20 >>>>> A post in another thread recently said >>>>>=20 >>>>>> I do think that the increased significance of meetings >>>>>> in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking about >>>>>> things like nomcom but about significance to our technical >>>>>> work) is a problem, both because it tends to marginalize >>>>>> people who can't come to meetings and because it slows >>>>>> work down. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly agree >> with >>>>> the marginalisation, that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend = to >>>>> develop an in-crowd of those that can participate with the world = at >>>>> large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was = arrived >> at >>>>> by whom. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Tom Petch --Apple-Mail=_3BC7E770-3AAE-457E-8718-34ABEC8D3E79 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Tom,

Inline= for my comments.

On Feb 18, 2015, at 3:40 AM, = t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

Inline <tp>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" = <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February = 17, 2015 7:09 PM


Tom

inline for my comments.
On Feb 17, 2015, at = 10:19 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

Sam

Thanks for the uploads. =   While having materials on the WG list
serves = the immediate need well, consider if say an AD or Gen-ART
reviewer
(not something I will ever be:-) wants = to look back a year or two
later
to see how a decision was = arrived at, then having them on the
proceedings page makes = them easier to find (or even for me six months
later).

I commented earlier that only about a = quarter
of interims in 2014 met the requirements as I = understand them i.e.

"interim meetings are = subject to the same rules for advance
notification, = reporting, open participation, and process, which apply
to
other working group = meetings."

I wonder if this is sustainable = given the explosive growth in Interim
Meetings, especially = when a single WG holds many such between the IETF
Meetings. =  Which brings me to

2014-10-02 nvo3 = minutes yes (pdf Yuk), but I cannot see a list of
attendees

In regards to attendees list, neither does the = F2F meeting minutes
capture that. The list of = attendees are documented as part of Blue
sheet.
Initially, the virtual meeting minutes did = capture attendees list, but
after discussing with = Chairs, they were deliberately not added.
Two reasons
- Difficult to capture list of attendees on a = virtual meeting (lot of
folks are being = missed)
- The list of attendees = were being captured on virtual blue sheet, which
we employed in the recent interims.
(http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart
<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/nvo3/trac/wiki/WikiStart>)

<tp>

The topic of attendee lists has surfaced (as = Blue Sheets) on the main
IETF list, for example in = April 2012.  The impression I get is that
there is obligation on the IETF to keep records = if only against possible
future legal = actions.

The 'Note Well' = says

"A participant in any IETF = activity acknowledges that written, audio and
video records of meetings may be made and may be = available to the
public."

so a participant should not have an expectation = of privacy.

I don't see a need for = them to be in the minutes but note that that is
what most WG do; of the 14 WGs that held more = than one Interim Meeting
in 2014, lmap was the only = other one never to have provided an attendee
list.

This probably needs = clarifying for the IETF at large.
%sam - I = am by no means a lawyer or have position about privacy related topics, = but not sure if meeting minutes is the right place to document attendee = list.
As blue sheets are used for that and not part of minutes = of F2F mtg, may be some guideline and clarification for IETF at large is = needed, as you mentioned.
I like the idea of Etherpad for = attendees to sign in and also the tools now support upload of blue = sheet.

For NVo3, I=E2=80=99ll try to = as gather as much data as I have, for the past interims, and upload them = to proceedings page.
May be it is good idea to add a column = for =E2=80=98Bluesheets=E2=80=99? <http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html>

-sam




Tom Petch

</tp>

If pdf is yuk, then you might indicate to tools = folks not to allow pdf=E2=80=99
s. FWIW, had some difficulty in generating clean = formatted plain text.

2014-09-11 nvo3 minutes but I cannot see a list of = attendees

Same reason as above.

As I = say, about three quarters of the Interim Meetings scheduled for
2014 would appear not to meet the requirements for them (so I = am not
picking on nvo3:-)

As we are talking about process, here is my = gripe about it. (Not
directed at you)
There are little or no volunteers to take = notes/jabber.
Whoever is taking is doing = a great favor to the IETF community.
Please be appreciative of the effort and not to = wrap this effort in
process = quagmire.
If the process is that = important, do change the rules to ensure WG
meeting is held only if so and so following = conditions are met. I haven=E2=80=99
t seen one for minutes, yet.
</rant>

-sam

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From:= "Sam Aldrin" <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
To: "Alia Atlas" = <akatlas@gmail.com>
Cc: "t.petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; "Adrian Farrel"
<adrian@olddog.co.uk>; <routing-discussion@ietf.org>;
<nvo3-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Sent: = Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:26 PM

They are = now uploaded.

-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Sam Aldrin <aldrin.ietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Tom and Alia,

In regards to NVo3, I=E2=80=99ve been posting minutes and = agenda, promptly.
However, I see minutes for 10/21/14 and = agenda for 10/02/14 were
missing.
I did send out the draft = minutes for 10/21/14 to the mailing list
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html=
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04084.html= >>)
Agenda = for 10/02/14 was sent out to mailing list as well
(<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html=
<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nvo3/current/msg04000.html= >)

Do not remember why they were not uploaded. Oversight on my = part.
Will work with tools folks to have them uploaded.

cheers
-sam
On Feb 17, 2015, at 6:37 = AM, Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com
<mailto:akatlas@gmail.com>> wrote:

[Moved from rtgwg to routing-discussion]

Hi Tom,

Thanks = for pointing these out.  BIER was not an official IETF
interim - it was a follow-on = meeting from a BoF
and not yet chartered as = a WG nor a virtual BoF.  Nonetheless,
minutes were posted to the mailing = list.

NVO3 has its minutes going out = to the mailing list after - as well
as
agenda and slides being = posted to the
list beforehand.  I = agree that they also should be uploaded to the
Meeting Materials tool and am = cc'ing the NVO3
chairs and secretary so = that they can check up on that.

Regards,
Alia

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at = 7:32 AM, t.petch <ietfa@btconnect.com
<mailto:ietfa@btconnect.com>> wrote:
Adrian, Alia

Looking for the = outcome of an Interim meeting on the IETF website, I
became = aware of how rarely the proceedings are fully reported (as I
posted to the main IETF list recently).

Of the meetings in 2014 that produced no Minutes, three are = in the
Routing
Area,
2014-12-18 = teas
2014-12-15 bier
2014-10-21 nvo3

These are not lists I normally follow but I = did look at the Mailing
List
Archives and, for all three, there is mention of 'Rough' or = 'Draft'
minutes, in one case even adding

'I will post them to the meeting materials, by end of this = week'

Thoughts?

Tom Petch

----- Original Message = -----
From: "t.p." <daedulus@btconnect.com
<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>>
To: "ietf" <ietf@ietf.org <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>>
Sent: Sunday, = February 15, 2015 1:57 PM
Subject: Interim meetings - = changing the way we work


There has been a marked = increase in the number of  interim
meetings.
Using
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html
<http://www.ietf.org/meeting/interim/proceedings.html>
as a guide, there = were
18 in 2011
35 in 2012
45 = in 2013
84 in 2014
13 in January 2015 = alone.

With them comes a change in the way = of working, perhaps rendering
some
of our practices = historic.

Of the 84 meetings listed for = 2014, 21 left no other trace on the
IETF
web site, no Agenda, no = Minutes, no Proceedings.  Perhaps the WG
provided no = materials, perhaps they did not happen; sometimes a
cancellation notice is apparent in the WG List Archives, = other
times
not.

Of the 63 that have left a trace, 6 produced no Minutes but = did
produce
slides or recordings and so presumably = happened.

Of the 57 that produced Minutes, = 18 produced no Agenda while in 13
cases, the Minutes = contained no list of Attendees (goodbye Blue
Sheets?).

Only 26 meetings left a complete record, of = Agenda, Minutes and
Attendees.

The meetings encompassed 30 Working Groups, of which 16 met = once,
14
more than once, with one = WG meeting 8 times.

What is more subjective = is that, with Virtual Interims,
increasingly
the
only = kind, there is a tendency for the WG Mailing List to no longer
provide a record of discussions, choices, consensus. =  For example,
they
may make greater use of = github so that the minutes record a
discussion
of options 1, 2 and 3 = for Issue 29 with no indication of what the
issue
or options are; a while later, they may record an update to = option
3
so
it = would now seem impossible to know what was discussed at the
earlier
meeting.
Even with the better minutes, they never give the same sense = as
posts
to
a = mailing list of who was or was not in favour and how strong their
view
was.

Of course, we still have WG = Last Calls on the list but if at a
future
date, an AD or GenArt = reviewer wants to look back and see what
options
were discussed and =  how rough the consensus was, well, it may be
impossible.

A post in another = thread recently said

I do think that the increased significance of = meetings
in IETF participation (and here, I'm not talking = about
things like nomcom but about significance to our = technical
work) is a problem, both because it tends to = marginalize
people who can't come to meetings and because = it slows
work down.

Well, I disagree about slowing the work down but certainly = agree
with
the marginalisation, = that WGs holding multiple Interims may tend to
develop an = in-crowd of those that can participate with the world at
large only seeing the end result without knowing how it was = arrived
at
by whom.
Tom = Petch

= --Apple-Mail=_3BC7E770-3AAE-457E-8718-34ABEC8D3E79-- From nobody Tue Feb 24 07:55:07 2015 Return-Path: X-Original-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: routing-discussion@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BE31A1AA5 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0zWMc_4MVroZ for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ob0-x229.google.com (mail-ob0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96BF31A1A8F for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp4so44245964obc.0 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HzBQI5Oo+AmSH0Oe7vMm+WG4R8J/h5ERHUTZB/hg/sw=; b=zDWK63zu419cZDt2B+t/+KyCnusHH/2GCAtazsviiU/1DDcoCoy4G768IX2kJ8/V6/ HMa1JSHmdoYGpNlSOAlPCOQuAi3qGjycXjbdJFFePnCWoMHhsgWtCZnt6y+kHgbzufjr SDk0vmkEUBI7XFBC02O3bgrkg14v5YC09RCMidveTBzUxNBAAYOL/Zqr3dxQvr7ZfbI7 LjPE6JdQJQAkRBlhLFrBVc7C0eY3LAu53Mido3H8rot3wjCud3uB25x7SS6q65wAWxLC gpO1kzLLwO0lxGJAx9iV0i8yi42h6eTjOAsGb5wTpBWM5A4KLSfrLDZjR40KFKkhfE7p TN0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.85.225 with SMTP id k1mr11715881obz.20.1424793304921; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.60.94.20 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Feb 2015 07:55:04 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 10:55:04 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Routing AD hours at IETF92: Tues 18:00 to 19:30 in French room From: Alia Atlas To: "routing-discussion@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01229a16d17b78050fd78ac2 Archived-At: X-BeenThere: routing-discussion@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Routing Area General mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 15:55:07 -0000 --089e01229a16d17b78050fd78ac2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 At the upcoming IETF92, you will have the opportunity to meet with not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 Routing ADs! Adrian, Alia, Alvaro, and Deborah will be holding Routing AD office hours on Tuesday from 18:00 until 19:30 in the French room on the Banquet level. Please come on by if there's something that you need to talk about. Regards, Alia --089e01229a16d17b78050fd78ac2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At the upcoming IETF92, you will have the opportunity to m= eet with
not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 Routing ADs!

Adrian, Alia, Alvaro, and Deborah will be holding Routing AD office hour= s
on Tuesday from 18:00 until 19:30 in the French room on the Ban= quet level.

Please come on by if there's somet= hing that you need to talk about.

Regards,
Alia
--089e01229a16d17b78050fd78ac2--