* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Gendispatch Status Pages

General Area Dispatch (Active WG)
Gen Area: Alissa Cooper | 2019-Oct-19 —  
Chairs
 
 


IETF-106 gendispatch minutes

Session 2019-11-18 1810-1910: Canning - Audio stream - gendispatch chatroom

Minutes

minutes-106-gendispatch-00 minutes



          Gendispatch @ IETF106, Singapore
          Monday Nov-18-2019 1810-1910
          Chairs: Francesca Palombini, Pete Resnick
          
          Session material:
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/session/gendispatch
          Recordings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOGzajgewwI
          
          Jabber: Murray Kucherawy
          Minute takers: Ben Campbell
          
          • Intro/Administrivia - chairs, 5 minutes
          
          • draft-halpern-gendispatch-consensusinformational - Joel Halpern,
          15 minutes
          
          Discussion:
          
          Barry Leiba: Supports document. This is general policy now, but casting
          in stone is better.
          
          Phillip Hallam-Baker (PHB): Supports this. Described a time where a
          draft was published where he was not allowed to give input.
          Jon Peterson: Supports. Should progress this document.
          
          Eric Rescorla (Ekr): This should be AD sponsored.
          Ted Hardie: Broadly in favor. May need to clarify that consensus is
          needed to publish,
          which might not represent consensus on the content. AD Sponsorship
          is appropriate.
          John Klensin: Principle is correct, but this is wrong way to do it. Better
          to talk about streams
          and what is necessary for each stream. Stating in terms of what IETF
          MUST or MUST NOT do seems wrong.
          Pete Resnick: Reads that comment to mean after AD sponsorship, he has
          suggested alternative text.
          John: Alternate approach.
          
          Chairs: Pushing to AD Sponsorship. Does the AD need further guidance?
          Alissa: It would be useful to get more feedback on alternatives
          suggested. Would like to know if there are other people/constituancies
          that need to be involved before IETF last call (other stream managers),
          I can do that.
          
          
          • draft-moonesamy-recall-rev (outcome from the eligibility-discuss
          virtual meeting) - Pete Resnick, 15 minutes  (re-ordered)
          
          Jonathan: Does I* internal recall proposal augment or replace replace
          the existing process?
          Ekr: Intended to augment. The original process could still run.
          
          Mark Nottingham: What does it mean that the current process is not
          working, since it hasn't been used for a long time?
          Pete (et al): That is the problem. It's not used because it's too hard
          to use/can't be used.
          Ekr: There were situations where people were dissatisfied with ADs,
          but chose to wait for term to end rather than recall.
          Mark: A state of people being unhappy is not surprising.
          Pete: Not clear if there was no desire for recall and process worked,
          or that there was a desire and the process failed.
          
          
          Highlights from virtual meeting:
          
          - draft-rescorla could cause bodies to become self-selecting.
          - Equity generally considered an issue worth addressing.
          - Some desire to solve the broader efficacy issue, but good argument to
          start with smaller scope.
          - DoS on IETF raised as an issue. Not clear it's a showstopper.
          
          Ekr: Not clear that 2nd bullet was true.
          Pete: It seemed generally true.
          Patrick McManus: Not a lot of agreement. The fact that recalls are not
          used may be due to the cultural impact.
          Leslie: It might be good to categorize the issues that caused concern
          and how were they resolved. A change that allows i* to
          be involved in starting a recall is important. Sometimes they see issues
          not visible to community.
          Pete: Patrick's point was important; recalls have negative impacts. All
          these issues could be separate from what the recall setup is.
          It may be okay to leave the rest of status quo as is once we deal with
          the equity issues. Did not hear anyone object to
          allowing remote participants, it just may not make it easier to use.
          PHB: Once worked with lawyers to see how to use recall. Conclusion was
          that it is unworkable because it can take longer than tenure.
          May blow up organization. May want people to attend meetings to sort
          out issues directly. This is the last thing he would want
          to involve virtual participation in.
          Pete: This was brought up in the DoS discussion.
          Alissa (as individual): Recall can cause or aggravate shame. The work
          to try to improve community communication cultural is important.
          Work to try to more gently ease people out would better align with goal
          of creating more compassionate environment.
          Pete: More concerned about people who were doing active harm, rather
          than just falling down on the job.
          Michael Toomim (via Jabber) Very greatful for ability to participate
          virtually.
          
          Ted: Returning conversation to how to dispatch this. AD sponsorship not
          appropriate. BoF?
          Ted: Virtual participation support might be better started with positive
          things like nomcom participation. A BoF should be scoped
          more generally towards support of remote participation.
          
          John Klensin: Fear of DoS attack is that we used to allow any single
          person to start a recall. Experience was that it just didn't happen.
          Agrees about trying to support people better. Anyone starting a recall
          should start with supportive efforts first.
          When draft was first published, discussion was about a BoF, then virtual
          BoF, then this virtual meeting. If we have a BoF in Vancouver,
          the effect is to draw thingse
          Mike ???: Large numbers of bad actors are easy to come by. Cost of remote
          participation is zero dollars. No impediment to DoSing the process.
          
          Barry: Agrees with Ted about addressing broader issues to support remote
          participants. But it's worth addressing this piece as a way to get
          there. We have enough to move to WG rather than BoF, way beyond AD
          sponsoring. Scoping should be done in wg charter.
          
          Ekr: A charter won't change the level of support.
          Stephen Farrel: Agrees to broader scope. Working on making things better
          for remote participants is worth doing. Not sure recall is the
          starting point.
          
          Pete: Asked in meeting if this would cause active damage. Some thought
          it would. "We don't want to do this" is not sufficent to
          establish consensus not to do it. They need to argue that this would
          do damage.
          Ekr: There's no consensus on that version of consensus.
          Pete: Process doesn't say that there can be no objections.
          
          Ted: Issues of equity are not things that we can point to the same we
          as technical issues. The harm here is that if
          you start the discussion of equity here it starts with a negative bias. We
          are talking about who gets the right to accuse, rather
          than how do we empower people to participate. Results will be narrow
          and unhelpful to larger question and may
          harm that larger question depending on the result. This scope is wrong,
          you need a BoF to get a better scope.
          
          Pete: That is what I've been hearing.
          
          Cullen: Cases in WebRTC where remote participants tried to manipulate
          consensus process. Would like a better definition of
          membership for general purposes. Not seeing concrete proposals. Term
          "equity" to refer to disenfranchisement is grating.
          Pete: Does that mean we need a BoF or something to do that?
          Cullen: Would like to see concrete proposals for better definition of
          membership. Focus on broader thing.
          Mike ???: Talking about accessibility of organization. Noble goal,
          but is a different conversation. Starting that conversation
          experimentally is important. Starting it in a disciplinary process
          is risky.
          
          Patrick McManus: Addressing issue of active harm. One is cultural
          issues. Also tactical side--disagreement about what qualifies
          for recall. Recall proposals should probably stop hear, address larger
          question.
          
          Pete: Room seems to be leaning towards taking on the broader issue of
          remote participation and enfranchisement and BoF that, and possibly
          virtually BoF that.
          
          No disagreement.
          
          John Klensins: States disagreement. Real issue with remote participants
          being able to protect themselves from harmful behavior
          directed at remote participants. Significant issue independently of how
          often it comes up.
          
          
          • draft-thomson-gendispatch-no-expiry - Martin Thomson, 15 minutes
          
          Proposal to update BCP 9 to remove I-D expiration.
          How do we make small changes like this? What is consticuancy? How do we
          decide consensus?
          
          Leslie: Small change that leads to larger discussion about how we use
          this small detail. Answer to broader question is you
          need a public discussion and general agreement about the size of change.
          
          Ekr: Should form this working group. Did that with time machine. Group
          should recommend AD sponsorship.
          Ted: Wants to borrow time machine. Other streams use I-D series. Have
          different opinions about what expiration means.
          Need to discuss whether this applies to all streams. If not, then decision
          can be made for a particular stream by
          the stream manager. Need to be able to identify which drafts belong to
          which stream.
          Pete: Chairs did a quick review--more needs to be fixed than is
          immediately apparent.
          Martin: State that the expiration goes away, don't "patch" the text in
          2026, etc.
          
          Stephen Wenger: Even expired drafts can be used for prior art.
          David Schinozi: Choise of fonts is bad and you should feel bad
          :-). Supports change because it needs to be changed, and also
          as a prototype for how to fix certain small issues.
          
          Pete: Focus on dispatch question. Running out of time.
          Alissa: From previous discussion: Other ways to indicate
          liveness. Expiration can be a forcing function for updates.
          Stephen Farrel: If we make this change, do it for all streams.
          PHB: Supports change. If you want to supercede a draft, put in a new
          draft to replace it.
          John Klensin: Disagrees. Disagreed with making expired drafts
          available. Expiration is a primary property of I-Ds.
          
          Cullen: Don't spend a huge amount of time on this. I-Ds are effectively
          used as archival documents. Not important
          to spend time on this--most epic troll ever :-)
          
          Mark Nottingham: Supports. But calling is small and simple may have
          opened a door to hell. Drafts can change streams. Some have no streams.
          need to tread carefully.
          
          Pete: Just handing to AD is not the right thing.
          Alissa: Agrees. Did any comments change how Martin would proceed?
          Martin: Applying to all streams.
          Pete: May make it a IAB issue.
          Martin: I'd be happy to talk to IAB.
          Richard: Can have discussion with stream leads about process changes.
          
          Martin: This is IETF consensus document, which is why I brought it
          here. My opinion is that it cannot go to IAB stream.
          Will talk to stream managers, then come back.
          Pete: So you will do the foot work and then maybe go for BoF?
          Martin: Not worth a BoF. I think this is AD sponsorship. Need to
          understand/figure out how to make small changes.
          Jon Peterson: I-Ds drafts are not on a stream. RFCs have streams. We
          don't know how to target I-Ds.
          
          Ekr: 2026 says I-Ds are IETF documents first.
          
          John Mattsson: Boilerplate and expiration are separate issues. Which
          one is it?
          Martin: Wants to address the process of expiration. IAB owns boilerplate.
          
          Conclusion: Martin to talk to stream managers and RSE. If any come
          back objecting it might stop there. Otherwise, may need a little more
          discussion, but then AD sponsor.
          
          
          • AOB/Open mic - 10 minutes
          
          PHB: Need to change Note Well to add antitrust considerations. Can
          explain circumstances in private.
          Pete: Need a draft posted to list.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/gendispatch/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -