# GENDISPATCH Hybrid Meeting @IETF-116   {#gendispatch-hybrid-meeting-ietf-116}

Wednesday 29 March 2023

Room: G302

04:00-06:00 UTC

GENDISPATCH Meeting

* * *

## Status and Agenda Bash - Chairs and AD (5 min)   {#status-and-agenda-bash---chairs-and-ad-5-min}

Presenters: Chairs & AD

## Venue Meeting Selection - Update to RFC 8718 (30 min)   {#venue-meeting-selection---update-to-rfc-8718-30-min}

Presenter: Jay Daley & Sean Turner

[draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-00][1]

[Slides presented][2]

Joel Halpern: Philosophically uncomfortable with what you're trying to
do. The additional distance can add some personal difficulty for me, but
that's a problem for me, not for the community. But when you add in
weather and rain, it changes my view. This can be problematic.  
Jay: Challenge - why is a 10 minute walk with an umbrella problematic?
That's an ordinary piece of life.  
Joel: I don't have an umbrella with me. If it's not raining in the
morning, I won't bring one with me to the venue in the morning. I felt I
needed to say something.

Ian Williams: Agree to have the conference venue and hotel at the same
place. Change the verbage from "time to walk"; considering the
wheelchair aspect.  
Jay: The phrase "time to walk" is well-established in terms of city
planning. I acknowledge the inclusivity point and will look into it.

Mark Nottingham: Interesting time to put this draft out. This is a
different activity, not like a normal working day. Casual and
spontaneous meetings are easier when the hotel is the same as the
conference centre. Overall, I support most of these points and think
it's a good activity. On the network, we could be thinking bigger - do
we still need to spend that money?

Jay: More details to be covered in later slides.

Pete Resnick: The current document says "close proximity", but it sounds
like you want to be more specific in the definition. One roof is not the
requirement, close proximity is the requirement - right?  
Jay: only a broader definition on the "close proximity". Right on "one
roof" definition.  
Pete: Preference for "one roofism" is pretty strong from the initial
community response. I'm willing to put up with this, once in a while.
I'm worried about 5-15 minutes, because it over-specifies.  
Jay: Perhaps the core community is different to a distinct community.
The core community expect to be in the hotel, and the distinct community
are more open to these changes.

Bob Hinden: Strongly reject on changing the "close proximity".

Kirsty: Please bring views on the dispatch question, and keep comments
to clarification only that would help you answer the dispatch question.

Margaret Cullen: For me, this is close proximity. A lot of
considerations about what that means to different people.

\[slides resume\]

Barry Leiba: I've heard enough at this point to say this needs a WG. The
discussion we've had already shows we need a WG.

John Klensin: Agree with Barry on having a WG. We may not need some of
these things mentioned (e.g. printers) very often, but sometimes we do,
so we can't get rid of them easily. This needs to be thought out more
with the needs of the community.

Pete Resnick: Using email to announce and collect feedback. Community
input can be done via mailing list, instead of needing a full WG. So
split the proposal into different parts, and we can dispatch those
separately.

\[slides resume\]

Ian Williams: To check, venue here defines city, not hotel/conference
centre? But the RFC uses both interchangeably.  
Jay: facilities and venue used, different terminology.

Bob Hinden: Use your judgment for new venues vs good known ones. LLC to
exercise their judgment. For proximity, community input is needed.

Wes Hardaker: Two choices; give the executive staff some leeway in
making intelligent decisions, and if we want the community to have
input, we need a forum (unfortunately).

Mark Nottingham: Creating a WG would make an unworkable result. We have
to pay people to give us space, we may up with an unworkable suggestion.
Suggest Jay work up some proposals, shop these ideas around for input,
and then get AD-sponsored when it's static enough. Discussion could
happen on ietf-discuss.

Jay: Concerns about the LLC writing a document and updating an RFC that
was written by the community.

Margaret Cullen: Don't think we should have a WG. We over-engineer
everything!

Lars Eggert: Would I be an appropriate AD-sponsor, given I'm on the LLC?
Let me know your preference.

Rich Salz: Different dispatches for these questions. We don't have
strong agreement on where these different parts goes.

Pete Resnick: Your role on the LLC is technical, we expect you to be
there to represent and it would be ok to sponsor the document.

Joel Halpern: To get enough community input, we need a WG - it's the
only thing that . We may not need a full WG and need clear goal and work
items.

Bob Hinden: These points are all different. Just communicate what you're
doing for 2. For 1 & 4, it's different and we need community discussion.

Jason Livingood: The data behind this, that is driving could be helpful
- to share during these discussions. Please not a WG.

Barry Leiba:

Mark Nottingham:

A Poll is started, having a WG vs. not having a WG.   
The Poll result is 10 yes vs.37 no.

Lars: We should get what the community thinks about.

Margaret Cullen: Everything should be based on community.

Lars: Be careful about the "filtering".

John Levine: Be careful about the "filtering".

A Poll is started, "Create a separate mailing list for this initial
discussion/proposals."   
The Poll result is 29 yes vs. 7 no.

Dispatch outcome: Create a separate mailing list for these discussions
with an active moderator. Jay to distil out the 4 initial proposals into
concrete topics and bring them to the community, get "enough" feedback.
Collect the feedback from the community by mailing list and present back
to the gendispatch list or group as needed. Depending on this feedback
process, decide again where to go in future; it will either be stable
enough for AD-sponsorship or unstable enough to need a WG.

## Re-Examining the IESG and IAB (20 min)   {#re-examining-the-iesg-and-iab-20-min}

Presenter: Rich Salz

(Rejected BoF request - due to late submission)

[Slides presented][3]

Cullen Jennings: How long is long enough to be good enough?

Mirja Kuhlewind: Not correct in the slides. A lot of ADs are not full
time. It could be more efficient. Two years are long.

Eric Rescorla: agree that the AD job is undesirable.

Margaret Cullen: RFC3774. This is a ton of work, and it's already been
done, so I don't think we need this week. Not the problem but how to
solve it.

Wes Hardaker: The problem is well-formed. Is the IETF the right place to
solve it? Absolutely. Do you have a sense of a starting solution? Not
your fault, the IETF's fault. We need ideas from the community, until
then. No dispatch.

Joel Halpern: I looked at the rest of the slides. I don't know how to
dispatch because I don't know what's being proposed.

Kirsty: Let Rich go through the rest of the slides before making our
dispatch decisions.

\[slides resume and then finish\]

Pete Resnick: Wrong way to approach this. Some ADs do less work than a
full-time job. More on the education team to help the leadership to do
their job better. Trying to get new JD is a waste of time.

Margaret Cullen: Should work on this. Interesting that it's still true
20 years later. Not sure a WG can do anything. The leadership should do
this themselves. They could figure out the optimimal way to work better.

Eric Rescola: Don't know how to dispatch it, but definitely not WG.
Narrow this down, so that it's a more tangible problem. Dispatch
nowhere.  
Rich: How do the community represent to ADs what they want, without a
document or BoF?

Stephen Farrell: Disagree with some part of what Margaret said - the
IESG can't fix this themselves; they change every 2 years. Need a set of
sketches before getting a WG, or a BoF where you flesh this out. Having
a

Lars Eggert: Continuous discussion in the IESG about workload. No easy
fixes. If the community has more ideas of how to change things

Dispatch: More concrete proposals are needed before moving forwards.
Refine, and propose some solutions, before coming back for more
community discussion, which could take the form of a BoF.

## Antitrust Guidelines for IETF Participants (15 min)   {#antitrust-guidelines-for-ietf-participants-15-min}

Presenter: Joel Halpern

[draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust-05][4]

[Slides presented][5]

Mark Nottingham: Interesting but weird without policy. Needs more work.
AD-sponsored is fine.

Alissa Cooper: Dispatch this to the rubbish bin. But if that's not an
option and this is the dispatch way forward, and this has to be done
this way, that this draft will be discussed on this mailing list, then
authors should be responding to all these messages. This is important.

Stephan Wenger: \[went offline\]

Cullen Jennings: Not sure we need policy. If we do need a doc then it
has to have policy.

Jay Daley: We were advised to bring together all existing pieces of
policy into one place. That is this document.

Eric Rescorla:

Kirsty: Move discussion on the content of the draft to the mailing list
(antitrust).

Cullen: So we're not re-dispatching here? Joel said we were at the
beginning of the presentation.

Joel: I thought I was!

Kirsty: No, it was decided on-list to dispatch to antitrust list for
discussion, then AD-sponsored. This is just to raise awareness.

Lars: AD-sponsored, means it will also go on ietf last call.

Martin: Who asked you to come here and present? Joel: Lars. Lars: Give
Russ an opportunities to express his opinions.

Jay: There was an objection about the BoF, because of the result of a
BoF in 2013, the objection was that this draft is going against that
conclusion. That's why this is being re-presented here, but that person
isn't here to raise their objections in person.

Kirsty: So not to be all, "I was right", but I was right... not
re-dispatching, just making the community aware that this is going to
happen.

Andrew Campling: To be fair to the chairs, they did say many times that
this was not re-dispatching this draft.

DISPATCH: Take to the antitrust@ietf mailing list to continue, as
decided on-list.

## Policy expert engagement in IETF standardization (15 min)   {#policy-expert-engagement-in-ietf-standardization-15-min}

Presenter: Stacie Hoffmann (remote) / Marek Blachut

IETF 115 side meeting

draft-hoffmann-gendispatch-policy-stakeholders

[Slides presented][6]

Pete Resnick: I did read the draft. I think the community that you are
part of (policy) is quite good at communicating with different parties
with different languages in many ways. This IETF community is lousy at
communication. The idea of having a WG to discuss this is going to lead
to bad places. Maybe an IAB effort is a good idea. Communication should
be mediated in a reasonable way. Suggest a programme or IAB effort.

Stacie: Useful feedback, thank you.

Eric Rescorla: I think that you had a long list of quasi-existing
efforts, and none of those work quite well at the moment. I don't think
a WG will be useful. I found the problem statement confusing. Try to
sharpen it to make your problem smaller. Most approachable is possibly a
lack of policy ?? . Not so much needs a gap analysis, but ?? \[missed
this\]

Stephen Farrell: I don't see that policy-making is usually that
coherent. We see lobbying, etc - I want to be wary of that. Not a WG.

Alissa Cooper: In terms of gap analysis, the core and strongest
engagement we had isn't present in the document - having regulators
engage directly, which has worked well (e.g. emergency services group).
Gap analysis - needs to reflect that reality too. I spent 7 years in the
IETF for a civil rights organisations, so we have lots of this
engagement with Ofcom, FCC, some of us have testified in Congress.
Everyone wants a "landing point", but there is concern that you would
alter the IETF process. We don't need a WG.

Stacie: To be clear, we're not trying to alter the process. We're trying
to get policy people involved in the existing structures. Would be great
to add in those other touchpoints and work with you on getting that
included.

\[we ran out of time\]

Martin: Time is out and we need to terminate the meeting.

Dispatch: asking the question was premature, with the draft posted only
on Monday, so more discussion is needed before trying to dispatch.

## Dispatch summary   {#dispatch-summary}

*   **Venue discussion**: Create a separate mailing list for these
    discussions with an active moderator. Jay to distil out the 4
    initial proposals into concrete topics and bring them to the
    community, get "enough" feedback. Collect the feedback from the
    community by mailing list and present back to the gendispatch list
    or group as needed. Depending on this feedback process, decide again
    where to go in future; it will either be stable enough for
    AD-sponsorship or unstable enough to need a WG.
*   **Re-examining the IAB & IESG**: More concrete proposals are needed
    before moving forwards. Refine, and propose some solutions, before
    coming back for more community discussion, which could take the form
    of a BoF.
*   **Antitrust guidelines**: Take to the antitrust@ietf mailing list to
    continue, as decided on-list.
*   **Policy expert engagement**: More discussion needed before
    dispatching, as the draft was posted late.



[1]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements/
[2]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-116-gendispatch-venue-requirements-draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements/
[3]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-116-gendispatch-re-examining-the-iesg-and-iab/
[4]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-halpern-gendispatch-antitrust/
[5]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-116-gendispatch-antitrust-guidelines-for-ietf-participants/
[6]: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-116-gendispatch-policy-expert-engagement-in-ietf-standardisation/