My 0.02 below: On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Murphy, Sandra wrote:
> As the last few day's email explosion has shown, this is a complex topic, > covering routing, security, operations, governance, policy, etc. > > The complexities mean more energy and time for debate is needed than is > possible in IETF meetings. Progress so far in the working group has been > aided by intense lengthy discussions in-between the IETF meetings. Those > involved in the discussions were wg members, including half-a-dozen draft > authors and individuals from IETF, ops, vendor, academic, research, etc. > > But the ADs were concerned about the effect on the open IETF process. > > To continue the energy and continue to promote progress, several options were > considered. The ADs' eventual decision was that organizing frequent open > interim meetings would be best, so that the entire wg could participate as > they wished. > > Interim meetings would be face-face meetings co-located with venues of > communities of interest to this work (ie nanog, ripe, arin, etc.) when > facilities are volunteered, or virtual meetings when volunteer hosts can not > be found. So, for those that make special plans to attend IETF meetings, we now must _also_ make plans to attend a lot more meetings (re: the f2f comment). I understand that the hope here is to increase the rate of progress that the wg makes. However, I fear the effect would be that those who can travel more will develop more context and influence more decisions than others. If I'm not mistaken, the mailing list is open 24/7, IDs are processed during those same hours, so (wrt trying to increase some rate of progress) why is there a special case being made for sidr, as opposed to other ietf wgs? > > The idea is to meet to discuss thorny topics at length. Agendas announced > ahead of time, remote participation always available, minutes reported to the > wg, proceedings published. When webex is used, recordings will be taken. Why is this an exceptional case? Have there not been other wgs w/ these issues before? > > This should function like regular IETF sidr meetings (but more often and with > more remote participation). > > Here is a suggested semi-schedule for the next several months. > > 30 April (chosen so as not to conflict with RIPE or ARIN in the preceding > weeks) (Likely important topic - the government oversight concerns at RIPE > and mitigating possibilities, impacts of the ARIN and RIPE meeting) > > 6 Jun, co-located with NANOG (that is the Wed after NANOG ends - there are > indications that nanog may be able to lend a room after noon.) > > the last part of June: 25 Jun - 3 July > > at one end or the other of the IETF (sort of like iegp meets at IETFs) in July > > (not likely people will want to try to meet in August) > > Then further out: mid-Sep, mid-October (maybe NANOG/ARIN, as a community of > interest), IETF in November. > > Interim meetings are not supported by the secretariat, so for face-face > meetings we have to rely on volunteer organizations or hosts. That will mean > that some meetings will have no hosts (virtual) or will have hosts but be > space bounded (limited face-face). Remote participation will always be > available. > > Comments? This is a large amount of travel and I think it unduly reduces the ability of many of the wg's members to participate at the same level as they do today. I think this is a bad idea. Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
