From nobody Mon Oct 5 07:13:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CB63A0B02 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:13:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.992 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.992 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.107, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com 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 L5uymXOsvZpY for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x735.google.com (mail-qk1-x735.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::735]) (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 B1C613A0B0B for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 07:13:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x735.google.com with SMTP id q5so12036532qkc.2 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:13:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :to; bh=ICnq0PufCUHHY8WMSiAJIJyEtbT9Zrbq4rOiQKOq6eY=; b=TFszZdasjlYKB7MDhmAwUPExeg7WIiYc+KqDcpt50i+2lmi5ibElXu5LE8P/UPoQQs WE2blNQ+MkkXPC5Z8pGnJicavWuFAyeU7HsflIoIWSZAkoXFb1moDUY5NIQHkfvdK+r1 ULivEZ1Uo+DdkO5xnp+2RYYglzbYIiPdOlPE0= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:message-id:date:to; bh=ICnq0PufCUHHY8WMSiAJIJyEtbT9Zrbq4rOiQKOq6eY=; b=YYyLWw2ONgV8QayzxEs3/qvVfegYFJF1l1/OyP395uqJgPeDJ/z1AlpiOjOn8o4Dh+ E0eY7fHa03LKso7oN70NVdoKkwWkkb+FWGosxu37dDC7FBU4FRvpvvkyDMa9pdkgMoBK lRmujspBKtbc5Ft/k4gfMo5PzKKP8WbQNiQPz5EIm5bgqjhFrQVoGA0sAn6zAIONxm/2 EZvCFxZm5FmKEFyJcIyQvXUWd3K1HP+HlavhMaJc5OiuCKkyUy8zX+eHV8qXvDf8trBC J1Q92jAK/d0qynJ8pIjWSQP18gSQqseK9IiJIfQh7L3+3FS1HPpqDV0X1EaJjq6SFggg czPQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530hRkoSggksZEZXPB9cs8c/Hr+mWUuGt+vcB4QS4YF4vC019fxX gDB/Bv5wcOeS6tI3KDK/91Sc0pFxvuSc1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzRiuhod1ItZvzNlf0cC/4PLvm31fSEswYNThw0KVg6nXDbWLorMePdUdWO0AimToRYyfrwHQ== X-Received: by 2002:a37:a113:: with SMTP id k19mr146478qke.306.1601907212051; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:13:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.152] (pool-108-31-39-252.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [108.31.39.252]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d21sm7391261qtp.97.2020.10.05.07.13.30 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Turner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) Message-Id: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 10:13:29 -0400 To: WPACK List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 14:13:35 -0000 Because of the low volume of list traffic, Dave and I decided to not = submit a session request for IETF 109. We can always request a virtual interim if needed. spt= From nobody Sun Oct 11 20:52:20 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210463A09F4; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:52:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 o1IRraMqa_2I; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f53.google.com (mail-lf1-f53.google.com [209.85.167.53]) (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 6EF2C3A09F3; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f53.google.com with SMTP id c141so10267730lfg.5; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2hyIbGZfFavCiGk8msN1iOud6fHtXUu58qadtHhLd/8=; b=gset26dZb/cI1H5z08dPPraNrWywa2yne1uI9Op2nvh31/2q/ywragUUjEpJSvH1vR 3qpNbJqNg0cGhcnyrVf4cTsX/sZKWGzUz0R7+i8CelehUzz10qYIddSC/B61Wx/w3epF uhsf224l1BE60AytLayytKVYjK1zXMhJnGOiJdeiubpMZfw1juvSm280Wwfs9MlfnvNx UtqSWtbneFHL34eB8TbFEqxe+94c6AFKbrAy9ZQlylfwnZ4kTEa3P91h7eAVCedpeas6 2CoOYpGLWWbPqfuE+o54b3duZ0MSraDSDdsgY8I/u1Sz3cNWYy0x1MVqr74d6PCDXHfv +c5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531+0s2bqGKwImK9HT9z19agvq2YmafJoI9LXtTx9GpOkEDQzUTV +CZi3Q5VBU9Ukheg9ceooCTTMUokWjGrxwITQw8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUYo7/tPoeVkl0HDBRww53hcTzAdY0216rMwDLL0bMTMsWzzEQabXKZZc2FdoUBlwPYPScCrWMHNoUK8qU8Ak= X-Received: by 2002:a19:7418:: with SMTP id v24mr7522192lfe.440.1602474724474; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:52:04 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> In-Reply-To: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> From: Larry Masinter Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:51:53 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sean Turner , IETF , manycouches@ietf.org Cc: WPACK List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b6c2e805b17138f3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:52:08 -0000 --000000000000b6c2e805b17138f3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I' On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Sean Turner wrote: > Because of the low volume of list traffic, Dave and I decided to not > submit a session request for IETF 109. > > We can always request a virtual interim if needed. > > spt > _______________________________________________ > Wpack mailing list > Wpack@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack > -- -- https://LarryMasinter.net --000000000000b6c2e805b17138f3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
Because of the low volume of lis= t traffic, Dave and I decided to not submit a session request for IETF 109.=

We can always request a virtual interim if needed.

spt
_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
Wpack@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack


--
--000000000000b6c2e805b17138f3-- From nobody Sun Oct 11 21:08:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B9D3A0A13; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.548 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 ZKL5ibIA2Bmz; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com [209.85.167.42]) (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 62ECC3A0A08; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id v6so1245002lfa.13; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rrgnp49PdCABUrsmh0ImqGxUVo9sYygwThpbf49YuOE=; b=mxeCxYOz5mX7tPxYN1cyEhrFFlBLVi7PVGuI00y6jJfzyY9Y9xF/IKQsOkELF2oytm 6oetArtlT5ckCpTDf7yQ6DSFpYY9+7Ycx/H1kUa3gTqTkJ6laPdgqF73iwlv43n6krEn BDQMlRxDQUn3rOwGaifwHhyjrgVAsFRtX9kbTXgIXFy5hH5hTAcdAPRhySlP672cTeTd yCMZ1aawiO5iZTuU/niQMx6l1RGNMXuBfrs38t1vGDB3JQdTysi/vL3WpkbIE0CgC2Eu bGtiohWrBQ8gnOgyvSBWcRqQa3WJ4Mg678dCLsQl/yUluVXbg8qUblX5c751qdcOgq+Q Q0xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530HWArC+0DIVA/F2EvS7L77DSK3ElNIVlbSTYZniF1gn5rAAtPB 92UhdteFq+Cn5AO/fnSJmTTxb9kw/H5O772mj38= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxUo3x4SmAeV/DPNgL2TY5q6po+PUGG2+nAhZ5VqDnkse/N9mJibluf1V1svrsLZSoShiD2YJeJ0WgS34fWrls= X-Received: by 2002:a19:9150:: with SMTP id y16mr4447607lfj.190.1602475707465; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> In-Reply-To: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> From: Larry Masinter Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:16 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sean Turner , manycouches@ietf.org, IETF Cc: WPACK List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004e064a05b17173a9" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 04:08:31 -0000 --0000000000004e064a05b17173a9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Sean Turner wrote: > Because of the low volume of list traffic, Dave and I decided to not > submit a session request for IETF 109. > > We can always request a virtual interim if needed. > > spt > _______________________________________________ > Wpack mailing list > Wpack@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack > I'm disappointed that WPACK isn't meeting at IETF 109. My impression was that there was quite a bit of activity in the Git repo issue list. I was hoping to be able to ask about two use cases for "packaging" web content. (The use cases aren't important for this note but I'll say they are "save this as mht" multipart/related and (2) the archival case of PDF/A, why people want to save something and have more confidence that people 30 years from now will be able to read the documents. That might address the dilemma of spec-iing what the RFC SVG capabilities are uncertain. now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is optional. -- https://LarryMasinter.net --0000000000004e064a05b17173a9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Because of the low volume = of list traffic, Dave and I decided to not submit a session request for IET= F 109.

We can always request a virtual interim if needed.

spt
_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
Wpack@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack

I'm disappointed that WPACK isn't= meeting at IETF 109. My impression was that there was quite a bit of activ= ity in the Git repo issue list. I was hoping to be able to ask about two us= e cases for "packaging" web content. (The use cases aren't im= portant for this note but I'll say they are "save this as mht"= ; multipart/related and (2) the archival case of PDF/A, why people want to = save something and have more confidence that people 30 years from now will = be able to read the documents. That might address the dilemma of spec-iing= =C2=A0what the RFC SVG capabilities are uncertain.

now p= erhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perha= ps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeti= ng is optional.
--0000000000004e064a05b17173a9-- From nobody Sun Oct 11 23:57:59 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10053A12C2; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 nYCK5geZFto2; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2EFA3A0EFF; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:57:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p548dcc60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.204.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C8qHq0pzbzyTG; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:57:43 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:57:42 +0200 Cc: Sean Turner , manycouches@ietf.org, IETF , WPACK List X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 624178662.610503-4146474c8266746a52bb59ae5e03e50c Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> To: Larry Masinter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 06:57:49 -0000 On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter wrote: >=20 > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps = there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is = optional. The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim = isn=E2=80=99t always a very obvious choice. Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs. More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of = generalists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where = new, formational work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's = and crossing the t=E2=80=99s, which might as well be done in an = interim). Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a = single subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at = the right time for that, too, but that is less likely. There is less = pressure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an = interim; ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals = for the meeting were met. Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of = an IETF week meeting means there is more incentive to have all your = ducks in a row and actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus = established. Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho = as opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme = selected by the chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend). Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Mon Oct 12 09:11:59 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642BE3A15A1; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.638 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 cxiKV2RfWDlG; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f42.google.com (mail-lf1-f42.google.com [209.85.167.42]) (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 6ADE43A159F; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f42.google.com with SMTP id r127so18878257lff.12; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=quxZvJc0hHPZWjEHMMUk49xww7GXmkzl7EVsvA/ZALo=; b=MiDFkpejolaL5Eb9bZXrtVOKTHLP2NuJ/SCM3DVPrJ7ZtA2/5eSttK2kEwYTkyk9Vj SozzxOIpE009lEyd83+6jyIBDoWF3RBK4QVztjhXylXOUOC8rE/435mjWMCizMunyTLF bmOh2AwuwsKxEFUj3LMtKRytYllvoatvCLEk1rprNsSWiqd6IEQrA+v9winyCmkdopyr VHKIi+33tISXpjC6tw/oiqkN2ZaBqzqHE2MHQfRNwjF34UjxebkEzq2tAMlOgNVKt8E3 NvWhSIPpz+oGS/zurschbuXW4y4PvheiPkyDy+lk+oARYPp6PH5dQ/5+xCdxfyrv3R2Y GQFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533jfZKKDCXeMr13wd3xSXNRn9/IDg2nBc/DwqeFHZQpJfTh1VdP y1aA1G4/+6TKeo+TWhBjbNERz+5z3Pgzi2Ii0aceNugjWj8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKlYZruOGtSbcjGAlMRCe4nobZnT7TEHRyUltWc4xSiN3gSKhUAfuCkGgXxHjDhczPtgTKG5/h5gjxroc9yG0= X-Received: by 2002:a19:7418:: with SMTP id v24mr8377541lfe.440.1602519106512; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> From: Larry Masinter Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:35 -0700 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: IETF , Sean Turner , WPACK List , manycouches@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000016ea2605b17b8e74" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:11:51 -0000 --00000000000016ea2605b17b8e74 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group And not using the mailing list either https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/ "It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think you've missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do better here in the future." So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting. To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if they held a meeting and nobody came?" What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request on GitHub. To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining: Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review meetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document authors, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answer questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed. On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter wrote: > > > > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps > there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is > optional. > > The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2= =80=99t > always a very obvious choice. > > Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs. > > More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of > generalists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new,= formational work > should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t=E2= =80=99s, > which might as well be done in an interim). > > Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a > single subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at = the right > time for that, too, but that is less likely. There is less pressure to > squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; ending > an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeting we= re > met. Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF week meeting > means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and actuall= y > end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established. > > Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as > opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by > the chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend). > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > --00000000000016ea2605b17b8e74 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This isn't a case of= choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' but ra= ther meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group=C2=A0 And not using t= he mailing list either=C2=A0https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg= /wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/=C2=A0

"It's my f= ault that much more discussion has happened on
https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, a=
nd even private
discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think yo=
u've
missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
better here in the future."
So... apparently not. Alt=
hough it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the =
reason for not meeting.
To be clear, it's fine they'=
re not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if they held a meeting and=
 nobody came?"
What I was hoping for was a way of havin=
g a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other =
IETF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable =
for a Pull Request on GitHub.
To make a concrete suggestion =
rather than just whining:
Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing =
there could be longer all-area review meetings where each active working gr=
oup gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document authors, AD's present) to=
 review their status and schedule and answer questions. Or, if not as part =
of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, well enough in advance =
to schedule a follow up if needed.
<= div>
On= Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masint= er <LMM@acm.org>= wrote:
>
> now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope"= but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an = IETF meeting is optional.

The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2=80= =99t always a very obvious choice.

Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.

More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of gene= ralists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new, forma= tional work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and cros= sing the t=E2=80=99s, which might as well be done in an interim).

Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a si= ngle subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the = right time for that, too, but that is less likely.=C2=A0 There is less pres= sure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; = ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeti= ng were met.=C2=A0 Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF wee= k meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and= actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.

Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as o= pposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by th= e chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend).

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

--00000000000016ea2605b17b8e74-- From nobody Wed Oct 21 17:05:53 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C143A0C92 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org 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 tNQwuvanb6uK for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) (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 2D4953A0C8B for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id h140so4637605qke.7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yjwT4gFC12b8ub/sI3OODVHi/zZSyIraeZ15eY2wcwE=; b=jZYA6BkzcXYwmCTlJ+oi7xsiGXUfndQS4Nn4iXcFRB1TVNmEkIzLaJFXLNtEMvDI5D pz0qVKZGVd3oXybuuiuu3wBrWx4mi/mv42Tl/Mg534+gn3bK3MuMsBsMHrYVcM5s7RYY +dLcRxUlg7HvgUk9lnepimerzQ76rIVDNqDv4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yjwT4gFC12b8ub/sI3OODVHi/zZSyIraeZ15eY2wcwE=; b=P/gc0TscaLTKhA3Wkzpm4LVheU+I+IoaaUkK6oNyUBcaLBtrQaa5xiZkQRdA+elx1R NkyH+5yhFp32bjpmMKxB/ssGcKymgeful0R8unr2KBo+amdOMi82NeHWNcXi0ShcAciG U3OBVMVrIBySynw5JcmASoGHT9k7Nwzc7Nsoo+2saS6oT5ItsXLpKRPCpOEj8OtE/isW s9qFfHrm6Qxf2qKkvMFcafUfKKk85k7hHCqCYd7gmJj7swwMffEGR4Rytl/yIJAUEc2Y 2dKA70ccP+nhX5r3qZHBitt2fse8sElDiGae3JuLZx9VBKucM+P/QqcMWHFGdJjNHPj0 ZVQg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Uz8hoHnVLw8zvMMtWgkoXTZ3yQTry7uAztQr1nVhRkodyRQOj Hu1xn5OIqixaa3XTt8X31j/pe6hUchL4H1VnkNaWiw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw5iswIC8e5Fv7HNmXNHLr4xNlVea5+dYSo0Op+XxLoUwcgdKhjyzGQNBoWagacABLOfLx/SwVFqicPb1Bdhpw= X-Received: by 2002:ae9:e804:: with SMTP id a4mr5181544qkg.324.1603325147600; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Jeffrey Yasskin Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:05:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: Larry Masinter Cc: Carsten Bormann , WPACK List , Sean Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e22c1905b2373903" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:05:51 -0000 --000000000000e22c1905b2373903 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing list. e.g. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html= . Might it help to set up the same thing here? Jeffrey On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM Larry Masinter wrote: > This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' > but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group And not usin= g > the mailing list either > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/ > > "It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on > > https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private > discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think you'= ve > missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for t= he > WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do > better here in the future." > > So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of mail= ing list discussion as the reason for not meeting. > > To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what i= f they held a meeting and nobody came?" > > What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they aren' = also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem within reach= . Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request on GitHub. > > To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining: > > Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review m= eetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, do= cument authors, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answe= r questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for t= ourists, well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed. > > > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > >> On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter wrote: >> > >> > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps >> there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is >> optional. >> >> The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2= =80=99t >> always a very obvious choice. >> >> Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs. >> >> More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of >> generalists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new= , formational work >> should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t=E2= =80=99s, >> which might as well be done in an interim). >> >> Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a >> single subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at= the right >> time for that, too, but that is less likely. There is less pressure to >> squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; endin= g >> an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeting w= ere >> met. Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF week meeting >> means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and actual= ly >> end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established. >> >> Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho a= s >> opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected b= y >> the chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend). >> >> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >> >> _______________________________________________ > Wpack mailing list > Wpack@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack > --000000000000e22c1905b2373903 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to = their mailing list. e.g.=C2=A0https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/= ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. Might it help to set up the same thi= ng here?

Jeffrey

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM La= rry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:<= br>
This isn't a case of choosing betwee= n 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' but rather meeting vs.= only meeting once as a working group=C2=A0 And not using the mailing list = either=C2=A0https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/m= sg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/=C2=A0

<= /div>
"It's my= fault that much more discussion has happened on
https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and ev=
en private
discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think yo=
u've
missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
better here in the future."
So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic=
 to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting.
To be clear, =
it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if =
they held a meeting and nobody came?"
What I was hoping for was a way of having =
a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IE=
TF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable fo=
r a Pull Request on GitHub.
To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining:
Perhaps whe=
n the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review meetings where=
 each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document author=
s, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answer questio=
ns. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, =
well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed.
<= div>
On= Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masint= er <LMM@acm.org>= wrote:
>
> now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope"= but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an = IETF meeting is optional.

The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2=80= =99t always a very obvious choice.

Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.

More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of gene= ralists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new, forma= tional work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and cros= sing the t=E2=80=99s, which might as well be done in an interim).

Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a si= ngle subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the = right time for that, too, but that is less likely.=C2=A0 There is less pres= sure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; = ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeti= ng were met.=C2=A0 Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF wee= k meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and= actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.

Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as o= pposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by th= e chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend).

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
Wpack@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
--000000000000e22c1905b2373903-- From nobody Wed Oct 21 17:23:39 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023E23A0CD7 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com 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 VcYjDEiX1HcN for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qt1-x830.google.com (mail-qt1-x830.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::830]) (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 892883A005C for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x830.google.com with SMTP id m65so3772247qte.11 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JWNmgyvT1ImTNR52sQMdFtKZIh1F99tiAQ+X3/rMl/k=; b=H5Se0lrdJnlEFuBpQk4mW92OY2UQrz8DCKOtqANohHnpI8r8JuTO302xX+dIecAacs TUY8gyNLBSz8pvxoLqze6KWMQO5G49iSQFfSY4G9YcLrpq0pPrUZ01VCpBqa6G/2tKt6 aj2qc1PCf2AypDuPqphIRv/XYDMsfQh2JvfMCoCpoOQu8SNJynK0U6ciiqNc6kPiHnqt mjcp/vO95okv6BMjsvBF87MF59rRCvE/UxKDRjEuNZDrpNd9YIzkczESUcQDnOcp9GIU Vv5kxOLd/uxaSddBVTXLVv+9zDw7p/MtoDcL6V+d8XbcXRxiT9/afrf7KCQi4tyoQmtU yquw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JWNmgyvT1ImTNR52sQMdFtKZIh1F99tiAQ+X3/rMl/k=; b=CPTY5c+mARd/H/LaU4DKy+72pkX71igLSACtwUwaba/ZZclEFTnJ70B7OFlJchW7ON ATtjuqDPmwQ5NhICGBGUNaoI8dui0sWMiRkjrOF3fb50NGP19gpjPlzaxReTQW0WRiwB JBXSJstmI5Jjo4LTjNvOZWGdDHL9Z9cAfzwQKZJ7qlQcHdciePtctgoa+XMfQ0fCBhPE b5Vwc5kuEh7k60eaE83ehMToWz36bpSMzeY1fRhh4PeOxZQ1Gft21jBAPNtaRMih+nbi yfqY5n+uTbmL47fiUoZEvTHg8XjXd3eTJbHioS57PMPrL866rof4lv5CFjGlmoSzxuMl jmOw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530to6tTVFPRV88Xf07w7zpis68VAJHgcGHTL0TqOV4efhG4PZn7 bw6uhd37d1L1SbaJD3ba5m4KxtyXRgYJxApLBTvJcchoFH0u4A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3r3Q28+G2rFDWZ/voITGCMZsumywzILWhUCBXt813kXMDPDkQdOHm7KVuS8B5kGI/foI0PdR1ILElVvMjaTA= X-Received: by 2002:aed:3102:: with SMTP id 2mr5641568qtg.250.1603326214983; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jeffrey Yasskin Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:23:23 -0700 Message-ID: To: WPACK List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000814b8505b23779e0" Archived-At: Subject: [Wpack] W3C TPAC meeting Monday Oct 26 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:23:38 -0000 --000000000000814b8505b23779e0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" The W3C's annual meeting is happening this and next week, and as part of that we have an hour this coming Monday at 14:00 UTC for fairly open discussion of web packaging: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/TPAC/breakout-schedule.html#web-packaging. The Zoom link is hiding in the ical file, but I've asked the organizers to make it more obvious. If there's something you want to add to that meeting's agenda, please find or file an issue in https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues and reply here with the link. Jeffrey --000000000000814b8505b23779e0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The W3C's annual meeting is happening this and next we= ek, and as part of that we have an hour this coming Monday at 14:00 UTC for= fairly open discussion of web packaging: https://www.w3.org/2020/10/= TPAC/breakout-schedule.html#web-packaging. The Zoom link is hiding in t= he ical file, but I've asked the organizers to make it more obvious.
If there's something you want to add to that meeting&#= 39;s agenda, please find or file an issue in=C2=A0https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues = and reply here with the link.

Jeffrey
--000000000000814b8505b23779e0-- From nobody Wed Oct 21 21:58:55 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44B9F3A09E0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.288 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.288 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 yfJEyz19hTmQ for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f41.google.com (mail-lf1-f41.google.com [209.85.167.41]) (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 19F323A09DF for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f41.google.com with SMTP id 77so593130lfl.2 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E2lxjNKsN4EswKnHKfOl8e83avZW4BpydHvGStx0Oe0=; b=PO6DauSVlNz92r1YJ/e946Ly5J5JVnk46ac43V4vj1+kzylZzjUriGByK3tEJD2LjN giXXd4P+WLFN/VLoipPw8XJnKOe37j4xG9nyiEQmvzAQjr9smggRMZsP2BpnW8ASNeFY TOqvtX7XQeusAvf8OC1k6Nk5KY7g0mYhy8k8QqS6tx6/7+Vb4cAS9NW+0NXoDkNj6/bI aCQnzyOziSciKjioXPlThMPwBIarC9nSchwjEET9l4bMd+9CwUnvnK37I1bx4waZD0Vt HsprOnAVI5TdU0A5KbS26/Pu1WGzepgOahoH5t6BMsjcG4Lb/GHDZ+5KMYfKG0vXSY/+ UIGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530c6X/Ni9UmnIq3sBiYgBK8hQqKMBYcDu6dpdCrQ5amvPq+FcRo /FLWKSCRrArLCbfn9T2iPsBrVrUBIwU/2DMTDFs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx6zvPnawYu2kbAvLuNIVqMLXIb8fviZYUXhoAq4R6adqZ2V2ZSlveLBl8JfC2u2Ih/EFWJ/MWwQKkWhB6GBJs= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c150:: with SMTP id r77mr205798lff.288.1603342729132; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Larry Masinter Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 21:58:38 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jeffrey Yasskin Cc: Carsten Bormann , WPACK List , Sean Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d2bece05b23b514f" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:58:53 -0000 --000000000000d2bece05b23b514f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing list. e.g. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. Might it help to set up the same thing here? How do you imagine that helping with the issues I outlined? On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 PM Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing list. > e.g. > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. > Might it help to set up the same thing here? > > Jeffrey > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM Larry Masinter wrote: > >> This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' >> but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group And not usi= ng >> the mailing list either >> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/ >> >> "It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on >> >> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private >> discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think you= 've >> missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for = the >> WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do >> better here in the future." >> >> So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of mai= ling list discussion as the reason for not meeting. >> >> To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what = if they held a meeting and nobody came?" >> >> What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they aren'= also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem within reac= h. Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request on GitHub. >> >> To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining: >> >> Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review = meetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, d= ocument authors, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answ= er questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for = tourists, well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: >> >>> On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter wrote: >>> > >>> > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps >>> there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is >>> optional. >>> >>> The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn= =E2=80=99t >>> always a very obvious choice. >>> >>> Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs. >>> >>> More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of >>> generalists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where ne= w, formational work >>> should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t= =E2=80=99s, >>> which might as well be done in an interim). >>> >>> Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on = a >>> single subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly a= t the right >>> time for that, too, but that is less likely. There is less pressure to >>> squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; endi= ng >>> an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeting = were >>> met. Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF week meeting >>> means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and actua= lly >>> end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established. >>> >>> Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho >>> as opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme select= ed >>> by the chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend). >>> >>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Wpack mailing list >> Wpack@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack >> > --=20 -- https://LarryMasinter.net --000000000000d2bece05b23b514f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>>=C2=A0 The HTTPWG automatically f= orwards github activity to their mailing list. e.g.=C2=A0https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.h= tml. Might it help to set up the same thing here?

How do you imagine that helping with the issues I outli= ned?



On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 PM Jef= frey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium= .org> wrote:
The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity= to their mailing list. e.g.=C2=A0https://lists.w= 3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. Might it help = to set up the same thing here?

Jeffrey

On Mon, Oct = 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
= This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs = 9;an interim' but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working gro= up=C2=A0 And not using the mailing list either=C2=A0https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXa= s/=C2=A0

"It's my fault that much more discussion ha= s happened on
https://github.com/WIC=
G/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private
discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think yo=
u've
missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
better here in the future."
So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic=
 to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting.
To be clear, =
it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if =
they held a meeting and nobody came?"
What I was hoping for was a way of having =
a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IE=
TF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable fo=
r a Pull Request on GitHub.
To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining:
Perhaps whe=
n the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review meetings where=
 each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document author=
s, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answer questio=
ns. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, =
well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed.
<= div>
On= Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masint= er <LMM@acm.org>= wrote:
>
> now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope"= but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an = IETF meeting is optional.

The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2=80= =99t always a very obvious choice.

Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.

More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of gene= ralists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new, forma= tional work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and cros= sing the t=E2=80=99s, which might as well be done in an interim).

Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a si= ngle subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the = right time for that, too, but that is less likely.=C2=A0 There is less pres= sure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; = ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeti= ng were met.=C2=A0 Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF wee= k meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and= actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.

Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as o= pposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by th= e chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend).

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
Wpack@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack


--
--000000000000d2bece05b23b514f-- From nobody Thu Oct 22 14:17:17 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: wpack@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315903A1064 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.139 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.139 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org 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 3FzUQ8Wczm1o for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qv1-xf34.google.com (mail-qv1-xf34.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f34]) (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 0DAC73A1060 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qv1-xf34.google.com with SMTP id t20so1753721qvv.8 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=4c9NX5s4TBwQM80L1JOIy1gQjlPas8L5K8LwXuxebiQ=; b=lzVSGDOTgP7sLPZU0OfT4Z87rRs7YoLpiWUB+Y97ZssXNlkxpftj2zP6jyJyls5/Xv aBF5qWfmVi6AzbGjAZIwZ6jCLDh744RzN6x58CYkeIiS9ZXlmnYaf98zm6Aq7+4oaP1Z XLSr99m3Afse91dB2miV1sCDbUVIhkzJsNkP4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=4c9NX5s4TBwQM80L1JOIy1gQjlPas8L5K8LwXuxebiQ=; b=qPOIwJ3mJQBi5sNs6a4OBEONWC/RYRqH7G6pfdHlmLw1Vf7dkFw+rYb9cYcd7moqPl LGGaJ9i5M4MitlnXHa7AB54acC3NtA08LaO82S7F6nPEgiYBMvASdWv/K2h6zVlJ+saG oYkc5zGE0GBeQt2h9O9XhcFzmkTeWw95daLW6yBwc+XfQAei1ULpEi0UwL9AsRcP4AWD w7cSa4sOqtbtQJYgTj8NcsMCkb/gSswHYuhTBy5CWNHuhw9z7knQNEpcOLOkAoYMjYlX ZRIR8G9qI5S09WnTqIlH+8mSMwP1JvhvMagISDuQzmngNgpovS5TrWiI679e9PTPQ1ln 4STA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532FmjrEZTaYsrSSBk0xRCk+A0QoevzyHZdGh8XvTI6lQoLF18as 9kiujtlc+/Tin7vvyxJ6cx40nkU2VMNpZWTbEfGvjQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx+8ifFXUIRx3hfCb6M4GgiYeo4jK6RnesmpCgUZtFdnZMHZSsh+0bSOWjP/bGW863geIk2dKrEeMAJFb2FxZ0= X-Received: by 2002:a0c:fa11:: with SMTP id q17mr4446645qvn.6.1603401432647; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7738D28F-1EE4-4EF3-8558-F9ED321EEDEA@sn3rd.com> <233AB8A6-1447-438E-A016-B8096415F095@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: From: Jeffrey Yasskin Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:17:01 -0700 Message-ID: To: Larry Masinter Cc: Jeffrey Yasskin , Carsten Bormann , WPACK List , Sean Turner Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3d59b05b248fc71" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109 X-BeenThere: wpack@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Web Packaging List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 21:17:16 -0000 --000000000000d3d59b05b248fc71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:58 PM Larry Masinter wrote: > >> The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing > list. e.g. > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. > Might it help to set up the same thing here? > > How do you imagine that helping with the issues I outlined? > You complained about "not using the mailing list". This would get more traffic on the mailing list and might incite people to reply here who aren't watching the github repository. That, in turn, would help the chairs decide to hold meetings and figure out what aspects of the project have interest. Maybe I'm wrong about all that, but it's what I imagine. Jeffrey On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 PM Jeffrey Yasskin > wrote: > >> The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing list. >> e.g. >> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. >> Might it help to set up the same thing here? >> >> Jeffrey >> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 AM Larry Masinter wrote: >> >>> This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim= ' >>> but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group And not us= ing >>> the mailing list either >>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas= / >>> >>> >>> "It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on >>> >>> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private >>> discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think yo= u've >>> missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for= the >>> WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us d= o >>> better here in the future." >>> >>> So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of ma= iling list discussion as the reason for not meeting. >>> >>> To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what= if they held a meeting and nobody came?" >>> >>> What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they aren= ' also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem within rea= ch. Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request on GitHub. >>> >>> To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining: >>> >>> Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review= meetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, = document authors, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and ans= wer questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for= tourists, well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: >>> >>>> On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter wrote: >>>> > >>>> > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps >>>> there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is >>>> optional. >>>> >>>> The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn= =E2=80=99t >>>> always a very obvious choice. >>>> >>>> Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs. >>>> >>>> More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of >>>> generalists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where n= ew, formational work >>>> should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t= =E2=80=99s, >>>> which might as well be done in an interim). >>>> >>>> Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on >>>> a single subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactl= y at the >>>> right time for that, too, but that is less likely. There is less pres= sure >>>> to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; >>>> ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the >>>> meeting were met. Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IET= F >>>> week meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a= row >>>> and actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established. >>>> >>>> Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho >>>> as opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selec= ted >>>> by the chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend). >>>> >>>> Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wpack mailing list >>> Wpack@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack >>> >> > > -- > -- > https://LarryMasinter.net > --000000000000d3d59b05b248fc71 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 9:58 PM Larry Mas= inter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
>>=C2=A0 The HTTPWG automatical= ly forwards github activity to their mailing list. e.g.=C2=A0https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/00= 32.html. Might it help to set up the same thing here?

How do you imagine that helping with the issues I o= utlined?

You complained about &= quot;not using the mailing list". This would get more traffic=C2=A0on = the mailing list and might incite people to reply here who aren't watch= ing the github repository. That, in turn, would help the chairs decide to h= old meetings and figure out what aspects of the project have interest. Mayb= e I'm wrong about all that, but it's what I imagine.

=
Jeffrey

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 5:05 PM Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@chromium.org> wrote= :
The HTTPWG automatically forwards github activity to their mailing = list. e.g.=C2=A0https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Pub= lic/ietf-http-wg/2020OctDec/0032.html. Might it help to set up the same= thing here?

Jeffrey

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 9:12 A= M Larry Masinter <LMM@a= cm.org> wrote:
This isn't a c= ase of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim' = but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group=C2=A0 And not u= sing the mailing list either=C2=A0https://maila= rchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/=C2=A0
=

"It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on
https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ =
PRs and issues, and even private
discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think yo=
u've
missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
better here in the future."
So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic=
 to cite lack of mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting.
To be clear, =
it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg, "what if =
they held a meeting and nobody came?"
What I was hoping for was a way of having =
a discussion of why they aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IE=
TF problems which seem within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable fo=
r a Pull Request on GitHub.
To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining:
Perhaps whe=
n the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area review meetings where=
 each active working group gets 10-15 minutes (with chairs, document author=
s, AD's present) to review their status and schedule and answer questio=
ns. Or, if not as part of IETF week, some other kind of tour for tourists, =
well enough in advance to schedule a follow up if needed.
<= div>
On= Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masint= er <LMM@acm.org>= wrote:
>
> now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope"= but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an = IETF meeting is optional.

The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn=E2=80= =99t always a very obvious choice.

Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.

More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of gene= ralists (=E2=80=9Ctourists=E2=80=9D) coming in, so this is where new, forma= tional work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and cros= sing the t=E2=80=99s, which might as well be done in an interim).

Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a si= ngle subject =E2=80=94 with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the = right time for that, too, but that is less likely.=C2=A0 There is less pres= sure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; = ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeti= ng were met.=C2=A0 Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF wee= k meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and= actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.

Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as o= pposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by th= e chairs (which sometimes means I can=E2=80=99t attend).

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

_______________________________________________
Wpack mailing list
Wpack@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack


--
--000000000000d3d59b05b248fc71--