* I'm wondering if you could give a bit more details about the expected
outcome of this meeting?
I have no plan, let’s see what the community thinks. (And this is not just me,
this started with some people reaching out to me.) Here are some potential
outcomes in my view:
* People get a better understanding of what OpenSSL plans are.
* People tell their company what is happening, and encourage their company
to give input to OpenSSL
* People rise up, light torches, and storm OpenSSL Headquarters
* People offer suggestions about quictls
* People talk about a possible perma-fork
Not all of those are equally likely, of course.
I don’t think “echo chamber” is the right way to think of it. Sometimes giving
people a chance to complain is a healthy outcome in and of itself. Letting that
happen, if necessary, while having the side meeting be productive will take a
good moderator and it won’t be me.
>On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an active effort to include
>OpenSSL people in the meeting (as mentioned on the quicdev slack yesterday).
All it takes is for one person to forward my note to
{omc,otc,openssl-committers} at openssl.org depending on which community you
want to reach. Or send them a link to the tweet from Nick
https://twitter.com/gamernb/status/1455541263315439627 which points out that
anyone can attend. I am sure they know of it. They certainly should know now
because there’s one openssl.org address on the TLS list (and none on the QUIC
list), although it’s certainly possible some folks on the project are using
another mail provider. So maybe don’t forward things and bury them.
* Practical note for others: the time of the meeting seems to have changed
yesterday, make sure you update your agendas (the timing in the trac seems
correct/consistent with the changed ics).
Yes, the initial meeting didn’t account for the fact that the US switched from
daylight time to standard time between now and then. Sorry for the confusion.
