Subject: Re: Plenary questions

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:30:42 +0200

Hi Ole,

How are you doing, we met in IETF89 London. I think you can help us to find
the best solution in procedure (no need for alarms or manager's
notebooks). IMHO, it is difficult to understand management and discussions
when things get out of procedure, I know that in IETF we should follow
procedures of meeting/discussions, and that IETF has procedure to make
things in order and to know our responsibilities in IETF
discussions/communications. IESG doesn't give much communication bandwidth
to remote participants even on discussion list. IMO it works one-way
communication (such one-way communication or such ignorance never makes
best practices nor solutions).

 I think we are not responsible for continuing errors when one
participant had input on the IETF list [1], such ignorance can happen many
times if procedures does not explain what managers should do. Also in
WG/IETF/IESG discussions/lists things need to be in ietf-procedure. All of
us manage our time/work to get better results.

The best solution/procedure is that IESG responds remotely to participants
on the IETF-list when related to it's meeting and it's request-reviews. I
got a respond to [1] after the ietf102-meeting, but I expected to get a
direct input, which was why I was attending the meeting at night. In my
experience with IESG they don't respond to participants on the IETF list,
when it gets reply-questions, hope this issue can change for
better communication and understanding and results. ( I tested the IESG in
that meeting, because it always ignores my input on the IETF list, one
director can say will it doesn't communicate within the IETF in the voice
of IESG, just directors !!!) .

Best Regards
AB

[1]   https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg108509.html

On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org> wrote:

> >> Please refer to the email which was sent to the IETF mailing list on 19
> July.  Why did the mistake happen again?
> >
> > Because I forgot to find a scribe. I’m very sorry about this. (I even
> added an item to my task manager to remind myself to do this after the last
> plenary, but it failed to trigger a notification. I already have one
> correctly set to fire an alarm before the IETF 104 plenary.)
>
> There were hundreds of people in the room that didn’t notice either, so I
> think we should take this as a collective failure.
>
> It is unfortunately quite common that remote participants are ignored when
> there such a big disproportinate number of local versus remote.
> Apart from running a fully remote meeting, I don’t know what can fix that.
> Because those of us who are local, want to take advantage of the benefits
> of higher bandwidth communication. Body language, beer, hand waving...
>
> Btw: I have experienced that finding working jabber clients for my OS is
> becoming harder and harder. Is this an indication of jabber in general
> failing? And if so what are we going to do about it?
>
> Cheers,
> Ole
>