Subject: Re: Softwires Interim Meeting

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0600

Mark

I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench 
into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to be within the 30 days 
of moratorium of when we cannot have an interim, where (loosely) 'interims 
shall not be within 30 days of the next IETF meeting'.

The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff would be 
Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?

At 03:38 PM 1/24/2006 -0500, Mark Townsley wrote:
>The meeting will be Feb 23-24 in Hong Kong. Participants should plan to
>arrive Feb 22 for an early start on Feb 23. We will finish by 2pm on Feb
>24. Accomodation information coming shortly (watch the
>[email-masked] mailing list).
>
>Thank you,
>
>- Mark
>
>_______________________________________________
>IETF-Announce mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:52:31 -0500

March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.

On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:19 PM, James M. Polk wrote:

> Mark
>
> I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a  
> monkey wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to  
> be within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an  
> interim, where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of  
> the next IETF meeting'.
>
> The Dallas IETF starts on March 19th, so I would think the cutoff  
> would be Feb 19th for the last of an interim.  What am I missing?
>

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:03:59 -0600

>March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.

oops

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:08:16 -0400

Hi James,

This was already discussed in the WG, and I guess the AD has taken measures
to avoid this being a real problem.

Right now it will be a real problem canceling the meeting, as some people
has already got non-refundable and very expensive flights after so many
weeks of lack of adequate planning.

I've insisted in Vancouver, when the plan for this meeting was drafted, to
fix it at that time, unfortunately was repeatedly ignored, with the
consequence of the meeting being first fixed at the end of January in San
Jose with a non-clear consensus from the participants, and now in dates
which are also unfortunate for some of us, but as said is too late now to
start changing it again.

In order to avoid this happening again, I'm working in some more clear
suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will
circulate them ASAP.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:19:27 -0600
> Para: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Softwires Interim Meeting
> 
> Mark
> 

**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:15:04 -0800

> suggestions for rules on how to adequately plan Interim meetings. I will

I wonder if that's the right approach.....

the original impetus for the "30 day rule" was a situation where we had a 
non-US IETF (I think it was Adelaide), and suddenly were hit by a flurry of 
requests for "interim" meetings a week or two before or afte the IETF 
meeting - all of them intending to be in the US.

The interpretation of some was that this looked like an attempt by US 
participants to avoid the expense of going overseas, leading to a 
perception that they thought it was fair that overseas participants always 
paid the cost of participating in US meetings, but not vice versa.

In this case, the IETF meeting is in the US, and the interim meeting is not 
- so the foot may be in the other mouth, as the saying goes.

If making rules, I'd say "30 days is the norm. It's a rule unless the AD 
says otherwise; the AD's decision has to be published" (so that we can see 
who to blame if the community thinks it's not OK.

But be careful what's a rule and what's advice, and don't mix too many 
topics into one document..... it destroys the ability to get finished.

               Harald

---

From: "James M. Polk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 17:26:56 -0600

Jordi

Please don't misunderstand me, I have no pension for making trouble here, I 
was just observing something that seemed a little out of place is all.  I 
have no interest in forcing any changes to your plans.

At 06:08 PM 1/24/2006 -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
>confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
>individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
>that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
>information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Mark Townsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:39:27 -0800

> March 19 - 30 days = Feb 17th.

This date was chosen, understanding that it bends the rules a bit, to 
increase the greater goal of global participation by coinciding with the 
APRICOT conference the following week (so at least some of the 
non-asiapac members will be on the correct side of the globe).

- Mark

>> I'm not an interested party here, and I don't mean to throw a  monkey 
>> wrench into your plans, but I'm observing that this seems to  be 
>> within the 30 days of moratorium of when we cannot have an  interim, 
>> where (loosely) 'interims shall not be within 30 days of  the next 
>> IETF meeting'.
>>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 11:57:23 +0100

And BTW it isn't a rule, it's strongly worded guideline.

     Brian

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:02:18 -0400

Hi Harald,

In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be possible to make it
a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks before a meeting instead of 30
days. My comment, based on very recent experience, is that the rest of the
Interim meeting planning procedure must be described more explicitly.

The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we want it, make
it in specific one, not mixed with anything else.

The actual rules on this are at
http://www.ietf.org/IESG/STATEMENTS/Interim-meetings.txt

"The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings and conference
calls to be sure that that the location, timing, etc.  do not unfairly favor
some subset of the potential attendees and that the proposed meeting or call
will not unfairly bias the working group discussions."

This is my proposal:

"Interim meetings must be planned ahead, in order to facilitate a broader
participation, reduce clashes with other meetings or events, and bring the
cost down for the attendees.

The need for them is typically recognized during a main IETF meeting. In
order to allow a fair participation, they need to be announced in the
relevant WG mail exploder 60 days in advance of the expected meeting date
with a request for candidate hosts and dates. Typically this means
announcing it already during the running main IETF meeting which recognized
the need for that. This will also facilitate the planning for some of the
participants.

Once the intention to hold the meeting has been announced, in one week time,
the "hosting" offers should be confirmed to the relevant WG mail exploder.
The co-chair and ADs will provide a summary at the end of that week,
excluding possible identified clashes and the WG will have one more week for
the a vote on that.

All the process must be made openly in the mail exploder in order to allow
certain interaction for possible small variations during the 1 week proposal
time.

The final decision should be taken at least 6 weeks in advance to the
meeting.

The ADs will base its decision in the mailing list vote, prioritizing the
participation of those which have work related to the meeting target and
indicate their interest in attending. In any case the target is to not
unfairly favor some subset of other potential attendees in such way that the
proposed meeting will not unfairly bias the working group discussions.

The ADs should consider not holding the meeting if there is an impossibility
for key contributors with existing work to attend.

Is expected that the meeting is organized 3-4 weeks ahead of a full IETF
meeting, unless the AD says otherwise."

This could be represented as:

   60(+) days - Announcement of Intention to hold it          3-4 weeks
/------------------------------------------------------\/----------------\

IETF                           Int. m. announced      Int. m.           IETF
|-----------|-------------|------------|----------------|-----------------|
            |   1 week    |   1 week         6(+) weeks
            |             |
            |             +------> start of voting 1 week period
            +--------------------> start of proposals 1 week period

How do you feel about this ?

Regards,
Jordi

PS: May be we need something similar for conference calls, but the timing
should be different

> De: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:15:04 -0800
> Para: <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:51 -0500

Jordi,

Let me make a very general observation, based on my experience
with the IETF.

Where administrative procedures are concerned, the IETF
functions well when the IESG is given general guidance by the
community but then applies good judgment and discretion to the
situations that arise.  If the community observes that the
IESG's judgment is not good enough, we readjust the general
guidance -- by complaints to individual ADs, by notes to the
IESG, by discussion on the IETF list, or even via appeals if
that is needed.  If one or more specific ADs regularly abuse
that discretionary authority, they get abused in return on
mailing lists, in plenaries, in discussions with nomcoms, and,
if necessary, by recalls or at least serious discussions of
recalls.  

By contrast, when we try to write down the specific rules that
should be applied, or the list of rules or steps they should use
in making decisions, and try to reach consensus on them, two
things happen, and happen over and over again:

	(1) We spend (I would say "waste", but you may
	reasonably disagree) a huge amount of time discussing
	both the details of the proposals and whether or not the
	proposals are appropriate.  In my personal opinion, the
	IETF would be a better and more effective place to get
	work done if a higher percentage of the community's
	energy went into technical work than into discussions of
	procedural details.
	
	(2) We get the details wrong, resulting in more time
	being spent correcting the details of the rules that,
	IMO, we might have been better off not having in the
	first place.

In addition, if we get the details seriously wrong, the IESG has
historically responded by applying a meta-rule.  That meta-rule
is that their first obligation is to keep the IETF functioning.
And, on that basis, once they conclude that whatever has been
written down and established by consensus makes no sense, they
simply ignore ignore it.   That action creates a very unhappy
and unhealthy environment, whether it is appealed or not, but
often may still be better than the alternative.

So, for a case like this, I suggest that you might want to have
a conversation, with any AD you think is likely to listen, about
whether the present guidance is sufficient and whether
additional guidance or discussion would help.  ADs persuading
other ADs about IESG matters and customs can be far more
effective than any of us writing I-Ds to pin down details.  If
there are no ADs with whom you feel that you can have such a
conversation, then I think you need to chat with the Nomcom but
I, at least, have generally found ADs to be receptive on these
sorts of issues... even ADs with whom I generally don't get
along well (not that there are any of those on the current IESG).

Let's try to avoid yet another round of stretched-out
discussions on, e.g., how many days constitutes adequate notice,
how to measure the accessibility of a location, what conditions
are sufficient to justify an exception, and whatever other
questions start to arise as soon as one tries to lock down
specific rules.  If an interim meeting is announced that is
likely to cause specific harm (as distinct from being an issue
of principles about dates and locations), complain to the
relevant AD and, if necessary, appeal the decision to approve
the meeting.   But most of us, yourself certainly included, have
more productive things to do with our time than starting another
one of these procedural debate threads.

Just my opinion, of course.
     john

--On Thursday, 26 January, 2006 10:02 -0400 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Harald,
> 
> In my opinion the 30 days rule is a good one, it may be
> possible to make it a bit flexible, just indicating 3-4 weeks
> before a meeting instead of 30 days. My comment, based on very
> recent experience, is that the rest of the Interim meeting
> planning procedure must be described more explicitly.
>
> The idea is not to have this in a new draft, or if actually we
> want it, make it in specific one, not mixed with anything else.
> 
> "The area directors will evaluate proposed interim meetings
> and conference calls to be sure that that the location,
> timing, etc.  do not unfairly favor some subset of the
>...

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 18:15:57 +0100

Hi John,

Thanks for your input. See below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:53:51 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: Interim meetings planning [was Softwires Interim Meeting]
> 
> Jordi,
> 

Agree, but I feel that there is a lack of administrative procedure here,
which already caused some troubles. I'm trying to avoid repeating mistakes,
improving the guidance and making sure the process is more open and fair.

I fear that in this kind of situation (an Interim meeting unfairly setup),
an appeal will not sort out the problem.

> energy went into technical work than into discussions of

Agree in that we need more people, and working more in technical documents,
but we like it or not, procedures are needed to make sure that the technical
work can be followed up. Otherwise, we may break our main rule: consensus,
not sure if say here also fairness.

> IMO, we might have been better off not having in the

I really much prefer to avoid problems when they may be too late to get
recovered. Details need to be put in place for that.

> often may still be better than the alternative.

Not really sure if I've seen a case like the one that you describe, but
really doubt it may be the case for what I'm proposing.

> along well (not that there are any of those on the current IESG).

Agree, and indeed my proposal was the outcome of a few email exchange with
an AD ;-) He actually suggested to include this in the
venue-selection-criteria document, which for me, and also talking to others,
was not the best choice ...

> Just my opinion, of course.

And thanks a lot for it !