Subject: [art] Side meeting for CT / BCP 190

From: Jacob Hoffman-Andrews <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 17:11:02 -0700

Hi,

For those that weren't able to attend, we had a discussion during the ART
Dispatch meeting about BCP 190's applicability to TRANS. Unfortunately, we
didn't have much time allotted and so not everybody had an opportunity to
chime in.

Adam proposed that we schedule a side meeting instead. Adam, would you be
open to trying to find consensus on the ART mailing list instead? I'm not
at IETF in person, and I know a number of other folks who were interested
aren't either (I counted 27 participants in the Meetecho). If the side
meeting rooms don't have video facilities, that makes it hard for everyone
to participate.

Since we brought up the issue at ART Dispatch, I think we've accomplished
the goal of "making sure the right people are paying attention," so I think
it makes plenty of sense to finish up the conversation on here.

Thanks,
Jacob

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:16:00 -0400

On 7/22/19 20:11, Jacob Hoffman-Andrews wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For those that weren't able to attend, we had a discussion during the 
> ART Dispatch meeting about BCP 190's applicability to TRANS. 
> Unfortunately, we didn't have much time allotted and so not everybody 
> had an opportunity to chime in.

The amount of time we were able to allocate was an unfortunate 
consequence of timing. The crux of this issue did not become evident 
until after we had finalized the week's agenda, with only one hour 
allocated for the DISPATCH/ARTAREA meeting. The goal going into the 
meeting was to ensure the conversation was started in that room. We knew 
that a discussion that would identify a solution that is satisfactory to 
everyone would take more than 10 minutes.

> Adam proposed that we schedule a side meeting instead. Adam, would you 
> be open to trying to find consensus on the ART mailing list instead? 
> I'm not at IETF in person, and I know a number of other folks who were 
> interested aren't either (I counted 27 participants in the Meetecho). 
> If the side meeting rooms don't have video facilities, that makes it 
> hard for everyone to participate.

I should have been more precise, and I apologize for any confusion: of 
course consensus is determined by discussions on the mailing list, and I 
encourage everyone who has a position on the topic to engage here, both 
before and after any face-to-face discussions that occur. The suggestion 
to also have a side meeting arises from the fact that I think there is 
benefit to having people with varying opinions on this topic get 
together in a face-to-face environment to see if it is possible to find 
more common understanding more quickly than one might achieve via email. 
This is, after all, the reason the IETF continues to have face-to-face 
meetings rather than operating exclusively online.

I'll reiterate my call that those interested parties presently in 
Montreal should take the opportunity afforded by being in the same place 
to find a time to get together and help each other understand their 
respective positions.

> Since we brought up the issue at ART Dispatch, I think we've 
> accomplished the goal of "making sure the right people are paying 
> attention," so I think it makes plenty of sense to finish up the 
> conversation on here.

As it will be. Consensus is always determined based on mailing list 
conversations.

/a