Subject: Re: [Manycouches] [Wpack] wpack - Not having a session at IETF 109

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:51:53 -0700

I'

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 7:13 AM Sean Turner <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Because of the low volume of list traffic, Dave and I decided to not
> submit a session request for IETF 109.
>
> We can always request a virtual interim if needed.
>
> spt
> _______________________________________________
> Wpack mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpack
>

-- 
--
https://LarryMasinter.net <http://larry.masinter.net>

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 21:08:16 -0700

> We can always request a virtual interim if needed.

I'm disappointed that WPACK isn't meeting at IETF 109. My impression was
that there was quite a bit of activity in the Git repo issue list. I was
hoping to be able to ask about two use cases for "packaging" web content.
(The use cases aren't important for this note but I'll say they are "save
this as mht" multipart/related and (2) the archival case of PDF/A, why
people want to save something and have more confidence that people 30 years
from now will be able to read the documents. That might address the dilemma
of spec-iing what the RFC SVG capabilities are uncertain.

now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps there
are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is optional.

---

From: Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 08:57:42 +0200

On 2020-10-12, at 06:08, Larry Masinter <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is optional.

The choice between a meeting slot during IETF week and an interim isn’t always a very obvious choice.

Some meetings are preferentially held during IETF week, such as BOFs.

More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of generalists (“tourists”) coming in, so this is where new, formational work should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t’s, which might as well be done in an interim).

Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a single subject — with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the right time for that, too, but that is less likely.  There is less pressure to squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; ending an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeting were met.  Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF week meeting means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and actually end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.

Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by the chairs (which sometimes means I can’t attend).

Grüße, Carsten

---

From: Larry Masinter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2020 09:11:35 -0700

This isn't a case of choosing between 'during IETF week' vs 'an interim'
but rather meeting vs. only meeting once as a working group  And not using
the mailing list either
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wpack/1Bmq3SQNdBSHxn_otyPCzzdlXas/

"It's my fault that much more discussion has happened on

https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/ PRs and issues, and even private
discussions, than this mailing list. Sorry about that. I don't think you've
missed anything significant since IETF 106, as I was mostly waiting for the
WG to finish spinning up. Hopefully having actual chairs will help us do
better here in the future."

So... apparently not. Although it seems a bit ironic to cite lack of
mailing list discussion as the reason for not meeting.

To be clear, it's fine they're not meeting; to misquote Sandburg,
"what if they held a meeting and nobody came?"

What I was hoping for was a way of having a discussion of why they
aren' also pursuing a solution to two other IETF problems which seem
within reach. Not the kind of discussion suitable for a Pull Request
on GitHub.

To make a concrete suggestion rather than just whining:

Perhaps when the IETF is SHMOOing there could be longer all-area
review meetings where each active working group gets 10-15 minutes
(with chairs, document authors, AD's present) to review their status
and schedule and answer questions. Or, if not as part of IETF week,
some other kind of tour for tourists, well enough in advance to
schedule a follow up if needed.

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:57 PM Carsten Bormann <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > now perhaps you'll say these concerns are "out of scope" but perhaps
> there are other groups also deciding "attending" an IETF meeting is
> optional.
>
> More generally, in IETF week, there maybe is more of an expectation of
> generalists (“tourists”) coming in, so this is where new, formational work
> should be discussed (as opposed to dotting the i's and crossing the t’s,
> which might as well be done in an interim).
>
> Interims can be scheduled more dynamically, and can be very focused on a
> single subject — with luck, IETF week meetings happen exactly at the right
> time for that, too, but that is less likely.  There is less pressure to
> squeeze out good use of the last minute in the slot in an interim; ending
> an interim after 30 minutes can be OK if all the goals for the meeting were
> met.  Conversely, the sparseness (and scarcity) of an IETF week meeting
> means there is more incentive to have all your ducks in a row and actually
> end the meeting with some (rough) consensus established.
>
> Right now, IETF week also has the advantage of getting to use meetecho as
> opposed to Webex or some random other Web conferencing scheme selected by
> the chairs (which sometimes means I can’t attend).
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>