Subject: [manet] Honolulu

From: Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 14:24:10 -0500

Working group,

Once again, I'm in the unfortunate situation of not being able to attend
the IETF. FYI, Justin Dean from NRL has graciously volunteered to proxy for
me in Honolulu. I will be on the jabber session, and I also plan on being
in Dallas at the next IETF.

Rick Taylor will be presenting for DLEP-07.

Regards,
Stan

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 21:39:53 -0800

Hi Stan,

I wish you all the best, I have a difficulty situation as well to join
or jabber-participate for the session but this is life, so I will read
the minutes in future. However, do I understand that the co-chair
(Mr.Macker) is available to attend, and only you are not able to
attend?

Thanks,

AB

---

From: Joseph Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 11:56:33 -0500

MANET WG:

Several weeks back I discussed with Stan and the ADs that I intended to
step down soon from the WG co-chair position as my new work
responsibilities were not allowing me to dedicate the time needed to
effectively fulfill chair duties.  Its been great pleasure working with my
co-chairs, the WG, the ADs, and other IETFers over the years in my role as
co-chair. Although I feel it is time to step aside from the chair duties, I
will stay interested and active as am IETF and WG member relating to
various documents, discussions, and developments.

As well, Justin Dean and Brian Adamson from our technical group will both
be in Honolulu.

Regards,
Joe

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Stan Ratliff <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
>
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2014 18:37:17 -0800

Dear ADs responsible for MANET WG,

CC: IETF Chair and IESG

I notice that in one of previous IETF meeting of the MANET WG had been
meeting without a full power co-chair, and that was IMHO not a good
practice but I thought it can happen once within a year or two. I am
not accepting having IETF MANET WG (I as a participant in the MANET
WG) running without active full role of assigned management, any lack
of management representation/activity can be a lack of performance.
However, IMHO having this shortage of chair power within IETF WG
meeting can affect WG performance, its activities within this meeting
and can give a bad reaction from the new participants. IMHO each IETF
WG MUST have a full powered chair attended so that IDs/participants
become active and progressed.IMHO, the ADs cannot take over this role
of WG chair within meeting-week, because usually ADs are more bussy
with other problems and they have many WGs per area. If I understand
the IETF procedure right the assignement of co-chair powers is the
responsibility of ADs.

I request that the ADs assign temporarly a full powered and
responsible chair at least for this meeting session. So that the
community/people can talk directly to the assigned WG Chair. I suggest
as supporting what was mentioned below by Joe and Stan that: Justin or
Brian or both chair the session but also I will suggest that one of
them or  they become assigned as co-chair for at least this Honolulu
week-meeting (there is another option that you can assign an active WG
chair from another WG to attend and chair the MANET activities). I
hope the IESG takes this problem into consideration and make sure it
does not happen in any IETF WG.

Please note that not assigning a presented WG chair with full
procedure powers for a IETF WG meeting-week may mean that the IETF
does not care of the WG activities or the attendance participants
needs. This problem should also be discussed by community for
procedure/practical considerations within the IETF General Area to be
solved

Best Regards

AB

IETF Participant from Africa

---

From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 01:58:35 -0000

Abdussalam,

Thank you for your email.

Sometimes events arise that make it impossible for people to travel to IETF meetings. Sometimes those events are last minute and unavoidable. Sometimes the reasons are personal and it would be inappropriate to go into them on a public list.

In general, if a chair finds that she is repeatedly unable to attend then she might consider her position. But attendance at meetings is not a prerequisite especially when the co-chair can travel.

The chair at a working group meeting is a meeting facilitator: they cause the meeting to happen according to the agenda and try to stop people hitting each other. The "proxy chair" is the person sitting at the front of the room doing that. Justin has full powers and authority to fill that role.

But WG chairs do not "make decisions" at working group meetings, so there is no lack in this respect and Stan remains in place as WG chair filling that role. I will be looking to replace Joe as Stan's co-chair soon, and this meeting offers me a good chance to talk to some people about that.

So, it is my contention that Justin will serve as a fully functional chair for this meeting.

Now, there is one other point you are making which is that it is important for the community to be able to talk to the chair. I agree. It is highly desirable for the chairs to travel. But sometimes it is not possible. Obviously (?) we could have cancelled the meeting, but that doesn't seem optimal. So we are as we are.

Beyond this, I don't understand your issue. Sorry. Can you give me an example of a question that needs to be answered, face-to-face, during the meeting that you think Justin is not allowed to answer, that cannot be handled by email with the absent chair, but that a "fully empowered" WG chair could answer? Or maybe there is some action you think a chair might need to take during the meeting that Justin is not be allowed to handle?

Adrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abdussalam Baryun [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 10 November 2014 02:37
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Stan Ratliff; MANET IETF; IETF Chair; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [manet] Honolulu
>

---

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:42:40 -0800

Hi Adrian,

On 11/10/14, Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Beyond this, I don't understand your issue. Sorry. Can you give me an
> example of a question that needs to be answered, face-to-face, during the
> meeting that you think Justin is not allowed to answer, that cannot be
> handled by email with the absent chair, but that a "fully empowered" WG
> chair could answer? Or maybe there is some action you think a chair might
> need to take during the meeting that Justin is not be allowed to handle?
>

I did not mean questions and answers of technical issues, but IETF
interactitions/works with community through its WG-chairs and ADs are
important. We are only allowed to do work which the IETF procedures
allows us to do. IMHO, the Co-Chair has many things he/she can do,
other than chairing the session.

Overall, If a new participant is paying to travel-to/meet IETF in face
to face way, then IMHO he/she should see some IETF-participants
attended having the bash as WG-Chair during the week meeting, so all
WGs attended in IETF meetings must have a chair. I hope in future the
IESG consider the issue as an IETF issue not a participant issue.

Regards

AB

---

From: Rick Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:40:01 +0000

I must say that my chair was very comfortable, and Justin did a great
job of steering the mildly hazardous meeting.

Rick