shmoo WG meeting @ IETF 108

welcome notes
questions on availability of slides
comments on camera selection/defaults in firefox
pointer to slides posted
archive of jabber session:

chairs: Suresh Krishnan, Amelia Andersdotter

minutes: Bron Gondwana, ~~Michael Richardson, ~~Alexandre Petrescu

Agenda Bash

Deliverables & Status

Brief overview of Dan York's work (previous work related to Zika's effect on IETF)

Wes Hardaker: point of order - these are the right next steps for what we need to do. There are people who want to work on longer-term plans. Looking for research grant funding - is it still OK to use the mailing list for that?

Suresh: sure, it's fine to use the mailing list for longer term - feel free to use the list.

Meeting Planning, Dan York

Presentation - Planning for Completely Virtual Meetings

Dan emphasizes that this is a community decision. Internet Society takes no position.

Many couches delivered lots of questions since 2016, but the work stalled.

via Jabber: all medium/large tech conferences are going fully virtual right now! ISO TC204 re-evaluating monthly. IETF109 only conference this year which hasn't called for full virtual yet!


Alissa Cooper: if we always drive the timing decisions from surveys we get majority rules which will favour US/Europe. This came through in the survey after 107. Lots of people loved the spread interims, but since they get scheduled based on working groups (14-16 UTC) which disadvantages some.

Dan York: that's on the next slide! The timezone question is gnarly.

Adrian Farrel: would be really interested in people's experience with agenda conflicts this time.
Suresh: do you think we should have more, or less, or
Adrian: not sure what is right, but would like to hear other's experience. Should we have fewer parallel tracks?
Suresh: hope we'll get some kind of answers from the survey - good point.

Andrew Campling: Likes having it in a week. Structure a working day for a chosen timezone. Not sold on gather town, but social meetings would be good. Many of us used to social events on zoom, try to replicate that.

via Jabber: Mirja should take advantage of not having to travel for 1 week. Alternative view - having it all in one week helps keep focus.

Toerless Eckert: we need to make sure it suits the entire community, not just the opinons of people here. Surveys are a good way to reach out to a wider group.
Suresh: yes, once we have a base plan we can reach out.
Amelia: there's a preliminary survey already, Jay might be presenting later.

Richard Barnes: anecdata - didn't personally have conflicts. Consolidated week helped set time away from other stuff.

Ted Lemon: when we talked about putting meeting over 24 hours in 2019, we didn't intend to put the entire schedule over 24 hours! Talked about what we could do differently - make it effective. People who wanted to present could all record their presentations, then set a time for the discussion about it. Have multiple discussions and take notes, people might not all be there, but we could have a wrap-up session. Outlining something very researchy, but we can try thinking outside the box! We have different tools than being in person.

Dan: good ideas - let's see what ideas we can get that haven't been expressed yet, aware of time!

Wes Hardaker: mostly what Ted said! Tied to larger question of how can we make interactive meetings work better - but alternative is to see what we can do that's no so interactive!

Dan: yep, how can we do things better rather than just replicate in-person.

Mark Nottingham: all in 1 week makes a lot of sense when we're in person - side discussions and grab people for a quick chat. Scheduling is bad (is my session at 9pm or 2am?) without the serendipity. If you're a professional IETF attendee this might be great, but to get the most work done - everyone is tired! As a WG chair work isn't being done as well. Don't see upsides. If LLC needs a revenue stream, let's discuss.
via Jabber: +1, +100, etc.
Suresh: we're not chartered to address financial matters.
Dan: valid question to ask

Alissa Cooper: great for people to share opinions, but mostly need people to write this down as advice to IETF leadership! Would encourage people who've queued to become a draft author.
(Alissa explicitly invited to write drafts)

Suresh: already seeing contradictory opinions!

Ted Hardie: would like to see cadence of things before and after (draft deadline before, exclusions on interim meetings after)
Dan: deadlines question is in 2 slides

Mallory Knodel: this week has been really useful to see how it worked (very different to 107). May also be why there aren't many drafts for SHMOO. A lot of WGs ran out of time, feels like that shouldn't happen when we meet virtually.

Charles Eckel: want to talk about Hackathon! It's something that happens in context of meeting. There's something about having everyone come together and have a focused effort. This time tried to do the entire week before. There's some value on set times.
Dan: yes, deadlines do tend to motivate people!

Cullen Jennings: want to back up to meta issues - IETF's skill set it not designing something new in this space. Rather than trying to design something new with no budget or reasearch skills - why not copy something which already works! The point of meetings is synchronous real time communications! Submitting comments via video is like drafts via email except video. We should try to figure out how we will measure success.
Cullen: the groups that do well seem to have a small group of active contributors who know all the area, and work well together - there aren't many new people coming in.

John Klensin: one of our strengths has been cross area pollination and review. Our goal should try to keep that, rather than optimise for the groups which are already working well with interims.

Samuel Weiler: regarding cross area review - would it help us to separate it from the sessions in which the people actively working get things done? Plan here's the tutorial for those dropping in, here's the tutorial for people writing code, etc
Dan: send text!

From jabber:

Deadlines are useful because it allows structuring the work. Pre-recorded video presentations could be useful.

Suggestion: just do BOFs and plenary type stuff in the fixed WEEK and the rest be interims

Question: Timezones

Ted: no easy answer! How do you make it welcoming to newcomers?

Mark Nottingham: don't think that the 1 week block is a good approach. Have been in groups that rotate the blocks to share the pain, it confuses people. If you can spread meetings out, that helps too.

Question: deadlines and exclusion for agendas and drafts?

lots of discussion Jabber: what other communities have worked through this problem?

Question: side meetings

Andrew Campling: Would be good to have space on the agenda for side meetings. Would vote for side meetings to be supported if possible.

Alissa: this time we tried the 5 hour block with parallel sessions - good to get feedback on how that worked.

Question: user experience

Dan: if you're remote - you can carve out time - harder when you're at home!

Question: social

Dan: we tried this time - how do we provide these spaces? might be helpful with prescheduled meet-ups, and designated hours when people gather in a particular space in

shivan (in jabber): WGs or RGs could schedule sessions.

Question: newcomers

Dan: some people really excited that this was their first time they could participate without having to deal with travel!

Wes: it's really difficult to to early morning welcome meetings for new-comers, and i'm also doing my regular work on top of the ietf now rather than focussing on ietf alone.
Dan: yeah, in virtual environment you're not there so it's easy for outside world to bleed in.

User experience: behaviour


Andrew Campling: thought structure was pretty good compared to some others - which are pretty expensive! Think there has to be some charge. Fee waiver makes it viable for everyone.

Q: Legal

Data tracker login makes sure people have seen note well.

Q: misc

non-IETF meetings (side-meetings), t-shirts, etc.

There's lots of other stuff out there that we can look at - learn from other virtual conferences!

Dan: even a bunch of short little drafts to talk about people's experiences could be valuable.

Technology requirements, Richard Barnes

Jabber is useful, but old and there are better alternatives now!

Cullen Jennings: search and persistence would be really valuable - Jabber kinda has, but not really.

Bron Gondwana: being able to paste images inline is very valuable - it's hard going back to text only.

Alissa: private group chats would be very valuable too.

Jeffery Yaskin: in favour of emoji reactions - they help reduce noise.

Wes Hardaker: don't forget licensability - we need to make sure we can use it forever. Also stability - we have been using XMPP for 20 years. We need to think about longevity.
Richard: we need stability of archives, but not necessarily the same software. (open formats rather than open software)

Andrew Campling: many of the points are addressed by the chat within Meetecho. It does pick up on a reasonable percentage of the requirements.
Richard: there's another requirement - usability between meetings, which isn't necessarily handled here.

Dan York: agree on points around accessibility and great user experience. Would encourage another requirement that "where possible, the tools are based on open standards

Eliot Lear: is Facebook Groups or Slack etc in topic?
Richard: more about

Cullen: we should be clear about what we think about dogfood. What's our position on it.

via Jabber: need to think about what user agreements we're making people agree with to participate, may be a barrier to entry.

also via Jabber: building open and interconnected internet rather than siloed should be one of the goals!

Richard: needs to have an on-join experience where agreement on policy for participation gets presented at start. And tooling for ombudsteam to control participation where needed.

Ben Campbell: email has always been my fossil record - one of the things I have enjoyed is having email support for seeing things from years ago. Suspect if our conversations moved into this system, I'd be afraid of losing that record.

Robert Sparks: is the retention policy the same for 1:1 side bars as for public chats?
Richard: good point - it's probably necessary to have a different policy!

Stake in the ground!

We're not building our own! Whether we host or pay for it, getting something off the shelf is important.

OUT OF TIME - moving on

Next Steps - drafts

We do have a candidate draft by Martin Duke for cancellation of meetings.

Suresh asked for volunteers to write more drafts.

People who agreed in the Jabber chat to author new drafts:

Other people willing to help (in some way) with writing drafts: