Subject: RE: T-shirts and other Tao questions

From: Gary Malkin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:02:16 -0400

By that definition, the creation of WGs and RFCs would
be discouraged ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald E. Eastlake 3rd [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 3:58 PM
To: USWG
Subject: Re: T-shirts and other Tao questions

When do the restrictions, caveats, and controls on something wich is
"encouraged" pile up so much that it is more accurate to say it is
"discouraged"?

Donald

From:  Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:47:51 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Reply-To:  Steve Coya <[email-masked]>
To:  "Susan R. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Cc:  "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>, USWG <[email-masked]>
In-Reply-To:  <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:
<[email-masked]>
>
>Howdy,
>
>Sorry for not responding sooner, but things have been hectic here.
>
>Couple of thoughts:
>
>>Even when I wrote this, attendance was typically one-third newbies; I
>>assume that percentage hasn't changed much.  Most of them were people
>>who attended because the IETF was convenient to them.  About one-third
>>of them did return for the next meeting; the rest were pretty much
>>passive watchers.
>
>>> Question for Steve Coya: are these numbers still accurate?
>
>Don't know anymore. But there is one clarification to the last
>sentence. It should read:
>
>About one-third of them did return for ONE OF the next TWO meetingS; the
>rest were pretty much passive watchers.
>
>(CAPs are the changes).
>
>
>>> Gary: do you like my proposed outline change, to essentially "WG
>>> stuff first, meeting stuff second"?
>
>I'm not Gary :-), but I prefer seeing the MEETING stuff first, then the WG
>stuff. But I will have no problem agreeing with consensus.
>
>
>>Also, interim meetings are most definitely encouraged.  That's
>>the official IETF line.
>
>This is true (though I do recall someone writing they are DIScouraged...
>they are not.
>
>Note that the IESG is working on a statement pertaining to interim
>meetings. The jist is:
>
>1. They are NOT to be substituted for IETF meetings (ie. we won't meet in
>   Pittsburgh; instead we'll have an interim meeting in Cancun 3 weeks
>   later).
>
>2. Will require AD approval
>
>3. Must be announced at least one month prior to the start of the interim
>   meeting.
>
>4. Just as for IETF meetings, there must be notes and they should be sent 
>   to [email-masked] and attendence must be taken.
>
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:40:28 -0400

My first reaction is that, of course, RFCs are encouraged and WGs are
discouraged...  Thinking about this some more, I guess it really has
nothing to do with how many restrictions there are on something.
Encouragement versus discouragement is really an emotional reaction
issue.

If someone walks up to an Area Director and says "I'm going to write
an RFC ..." I believe the AD will usually relax and possibly smile even
though it is possible that as the person continues to talk, it will
turn out they are a nut case and the AD's reaction may change for the
negative.

If someone walks up to an AD and says "We must form a WG ..." I
believe that most commonly the AD will initially get tense and
probably frown even though it is possible that as the person continues
to talk it will turn out they are advocating the AD's favorite idea
for a new WG and the AD's reaction will change for the positive.
Forming a WG is quite a bit of hassle and increases the work load of
the AD involved.  The formation and picking the chair and/or document
editors may be controversial.  Etc.

Just so, if a chair says "We are goint ot have an interim meeting ..."
my observation is that initial AD reation is negative.  You don't
usually get "good idea, that way you can focus and make more rapid
progress" although that could happen if there were the right history
of discussion with the AD.  Instead, typically, you get "are you sure
it is really needed and will help, are you sure it won't
disenfranchise those are the mailing list who can't afford to travel,
do you understand you have to post everything to the mailing list to
get consensus and submit mintues, remember that it is REQUIRED that
notice be sent out of the IETF-announce list, would it be adequate to
just have a teleconference which would be cheaper for remote members
to particiapte in, and so forth...."

So, even if the IESG solemly and unanimously votes that the official
policy is that interim meetings are encouraged and Steve Coya is also
of that opinion, unless I see real change in AD reaction to specific
instances of interim meeting, I will remain of the personal opinion
that the reality is that they are discouraged.  And I suspect that
similar experiences to mine are why Paul Hoffman believes that interim
meetings are discouraged.

Maybe the document should avoid both of these words.  Perhaps it
should just say something like "There can be interim meeting a
teleconferences of WGs outside of IETF meetings.  These can help the
WG get more focused.  However, it must always be kept in mind that the
mailing list consensus governs, ... " without saying anything about
encouragement of discouragement.

Donald

PS: The most radical change proposed by the IESG below is the one
month prior announcement.  I'm not sure why such a rigid rule is
needed if AD approval is also needed...

From:  Gary Malkin <[email-masked]>
Message-ID:  <[email-masked]>
To:  "'Donald E. Eastlake 3rd'" <[email-masked]>, USWG <[email-masked]>
Date:  Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:02:16 -0400