Re: calls for discussion

Hi Margaret,
At 04:32 12-02-2014, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> It is more complicated than that?
>
> We like to act/think/talk as though "the people 
> in the room" are a meaningful subset of "the 
> people on the mailing list", and therefore are 
> aware of the discussion on the list and can make 
> tentative decisions that are representative of 
> the list (to be confirmed on the list later). 
> The fact is that many of the people in the room 
> at an IETF meeting are not even subscribed to 
> the mailing list, and many of the people who are 
> subscribed to our mailing lists do not read 
> them.  There is also the fact that only a tiny 
> number of people in the room have looked at the 
> agenda for this meeting beforehand, and even 
> fewer have read the drafts on the agenda.
Yes.

> of only those people who are most active in the 
> work year-round.  In those organizations, it is 
> possible for the people in the room (or on the 
> call) to reach some consensus that is likely to 
> be representative of the list, and then say "Of 
> course Bob and Dave aren't here, so we better 
> run this by the list to make sure that we really have consensus."
> That's what the rules of the IETF read like, but 
> in reality the group of people in the room is 
> almost entirely disjoint from the group of 
> people on the list, and in many WGs, _all_ of 
> the most important decisions have been made in a 
> meeting room at an IETF plenary meeting (and 
> merely "confirmed" on the list) for many 
> years.  In other words, most of our work is 
> _not_ done on the mailing lists, or even by 
> people who are reading most of the messages that are sent to those lists.
[snip]

> That stinks, but if we want to change it, we 
> need to _do something to change it_.  It does 
> not help to keep stating an untruth as if it were the truth.
Yes.

> There are some IETF WGs that operate 
> differently.   They do their work on the mailing 
> lists and  have "interim" meetings or telechats 
> as needed that are organized on their WG mailing 
> list.  Some of them don't even meet at IETF 
> meetings, because they see no value in 
> presenting their work-in-progress to the 
> masses.  It would have an unfortunate impact on 
> our revenue stream if more groups started 
> operating that way, as our main sources of 
> income are tied to attendance at plenary 
> meetings, but maybe more groups should try this sort of thing, anyway?
It is not worth having a (working group) meeting 
if there isn't any major issues to discuss 
about.  I am not keen about having sloppy minutes 
for that discussion as it does not make it easier 
for people not in the room to understand what was 
discussed and it also does not make matters easier for a non-English audience.
> Does anyone have any other ideas about how we 
> can get back to a point where most of our 
> decisions are made by people who are active on 
> the WG mailing list and interested in the work of the group year-round?
I don't think that it is possible to do go back 
to an old version of the IETF, assuming that 
version actually existed.  The incentives are 
such that decisions are taken at meetings; it 
works to the advantage of people funded by 
corporations, it is politically appropriate to 
live with an untruth or a half-truth.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy