►
From YouTube: IETF 105 Administrative Plenary
Description
On 24 July 2019 (22:20-23:50 UTC) the IETF 105 administrative plenary session includes the usual administrative topics. For more detail about the session, see the IETF 105 Administrative Plenary agenda in the IETF Datatracker.
A
So
welcome
everyone
to
the
administrative
and
operations
plenary.
My
name
is
ELISA
Cooper
and
I'm.
The
chair
of
the
IETF,
and
thank
you
for
sticking
around
for
this
portion
of
the
plenary.
So
I
didn't
get
to
go
outside
during
the
day
yesterday,
but
I
heard
that
it
that
it
rained
did
anybody
see
a
rainbow
yesterday?
A
A
Think,
as
people
who
were
reading
the
mailing
list
earlier
today
may
have
seen
based
on
requirements
from
the
hotel,
we
are
have
to
be
out
of
this
room
at
9
p.m.
so
we're
gonna
have
to
cut
ourselves
off
then,
unfortunately,
but
we'll
try
to
be
quick
in
this
early
part.
So
we
have
lots
of
time
at
the
end.
A
A
B
C
Either
Glenn
Dean
from
Comcast
NBC
Universal
I'd
like
to
say
to
everybody,
came
out
last
night.
I
hope
you
had
a
great
time
now.
I
we
had
a
lot
of
fun
planning
it
and
Montreal
is
a
great
city
to
host
the
event
in.
So,
if
you
ever,
we
ever
come
back
here.
You
want
to
be
a
global
host
jump
in
it's
fun.
I
can
tell
you
from
experience,
so
it
was
a
lot
of
fun,
organizing
105
and
and
stuff.
So
so
much
so,
we've
decided
we're.
Gonna
do
buddy
cane.
C
A
A
So
here
you
can
see
our
usual
statistics
for
participation
had
one
thousand.
Seventy
nine
people
on-site
at
this
meeting
eerily
similar
to
the
number
of
people
we
had
on-site
in
Montreal
last
summer
we
had
one
thousand
78
people
on-site,
so
quite
consistent,
not
sure
that
was
a
goal,
but
we
achieved
it.
We
had
a
hundred
and
forty
seven,
first-time
attendees,
pretty
good
number
and
participants
from
48
countries
here
this
time.
A
We
started
off
the
week
with
the
IETF
hackathon
on
Saturday
and
Sunday,
two
hundred
and
eighty
on
site
on
attendees.
So
this
is
our
second
largest
hackathon
ever
not
as
not
as
big
as
the
one
in
Prague
last
time,
but
but
still
a
fantastic
turnout.
People
working
on
42
different
projects,
it's
become
essentially
a
staple
of
the
ITF
meeting
week
for
a
good
chunk
of
our
population.
A
We
had
to
hack
them
on
happy
hour
on
Monday
night,
where
people
thought
to
advertise
their
projects
and
spend
a
little
bit
more
time
talking
in
depth
with
other
participants
about
what
they
had
accomplished
and
the
next
one
will
be
happening.
The
Saturday
and
Sunday
of
the
next
IETF
meeting,
November
16
and
17
in
Singapore.
A
So
the
open
time,
the
open
agenda,
time
experiment
people
may
realize
that
we're
we've
been
doing
different
versions
of
this
experiment.
For
the
last
few
meetings
at
the
last
meeting,
we
had
open
agenda
time
on
Wednesday
afternoon
had
a
big
chunk
of
open
time
and
based
on
survey
feedback
from
the
IETF
104
meetings
survey.
A
So,
after
every
meeting
we
do
a
survey
based
on
the
survey
feedback
from
last
time.
It
was
obvious
that
most
people
were
more
interested
in
more
shorter
slots
of
open
time
spread
throughout
the
week,
as
opposed
to
one
long
open
slot
on
Wednesday
afternoon.
So
that's
what
we
tried
at
this
meeting.
We've
had
open
time
every
morning
from
8:30
to
9:45,
with
unofficial
side
meeting
rooms
that
people
can
sign
up
for
on
a
first-come,
first-served
basis,
and
we
had
the
Wharton
group
session
starting
at
10:00
o'clock
in
the
morning.
A
Even
with
this
amount
of
open
time
in
the
schedule,
we
still
had
plenty
of
slots
to
accommodate
the
number
of
working
groups
and
working
group
sessions
that
wanted
to
meet
in
order
to
figure
out
what
we're
gonna
do
next
and
if
we're
going
to
repeat
this
experiment
or
change
it,
we
need
more
feedback.
So
when
you
get
the
email
on
the
105
attendees
list
about
the
meeting
survey,
which
will
be
going
out,
hopefully
at
the
end
of
this
week,
please
fill
it
out.
Please
give
us
your
feedback.
A
A
We
hosted
hot
RFC
on
Sunday
evening,
so
this
is
a
two-hour
session
which
is
filled
with
lightning
talks
designed
to
encourage
brainstorming
help.
People
find
collaborators,
raise
awareness
about
new
ideas,
new
drafts,
new
initiatives
in
the
ITF,
promote
side
meetings
and
bar
buffs.
There
were
23
talks
and
the
proceedings
are
available
online
again.
This
is
one
of
those
events
that
seems
to
be
the
a
fixture
of
the
ITF
meeting
week
and
a
very
big
thanks
to
Aaron
for
continuing
to
organize
that
so
capably.
A
So
I
wanted
to
spend
a
couple
of
minutes
talking
about
conduct
in
the
IETF.
There's
been
lots
of
discussion
on
the
IETF
mailing,
the
main
ITF
mailing
list
about
this
recently
and
lots
of
discussion
over
the
last
few
meeting
cycles
dating
back
to
ITF
the
ITF
103
plenary
that
we
had
at
the
end
of
last
year.
A
We
have
guidelines
for
conduct
in
the
ITF
they're
enshrined
in
BCP
54,
and
this
is
just
kind
of
the
top
line
from
that
RFC.
It
says
that
the
ITF
strives,
through
these
guidelines
for
conduct
to
create
and
maintain
an
environment
in
which
every
person
is
treated
with
dignity,
dignity,
decency
and
respect.
I
think
there's
actually
a
few
notable
things
about
even
just
this
one
sentence
in
particular.
This
word
strives
because
I
think
the
notion
of
creating
a
positive
and
enriching
culture
in
the
ITF.
A
It's
not
really
like
a
box
checking
exercise
it's
more
of
a
journey
and
it's
probably
a
journey
that
we
will
always
be
on.
It
doesn't
really
have
an
end
point,
I
think
for
some
people,
they've
noted
some
particularly
troubling
interactions
on
our
mailing
lists
lately
and
some
even
more
troubling
interactions
off
off
list
recently,
and
so
it
might
be
that
we're
at
a
particularly
challenging
moment
in
this
journey.
A
For
me,
I
think
that
means
it's
an
opportunity
for
all
of
us
to
think
about
what
we
can
do
to
course-correct,
to
make
improvements
to
learn
from
our
mistakes.
I
know
that
there
are
certainly
things
that
I
can
do
better
and
there's
mistakes
that
I've
made
I
might
talk
a
little
bit
about
those
in
a
few
slides,
but
I
suspect
that
there's
things
that
we
can
do
collectively
as
well.
A
It's
been
revelatory
even
for
me,
these
last
few
weeks
to
try
to
understand
the
the
full
scope
of
all
of
the
documents
that
we
have,
that
describe
conduct
in
the
IDF,
and
there
are
actually
a
lot
of
them
and
they
go
back
a
long
time.
This
is
not
a
new
conversation.
This
is
a
conversation
that
the
ITF
has
been
having
for
at
least
20
years,
if
not
longer,
and
these
policies
are
not
necessarily
in
harmony
once
you
go
and
take
a
look
at
them.
A
We
have
the
guidelines
for
conduct
which
I
cited
at
the
beginning,
originally
published
in
2001.
That
document
was
obsoleted
by
a
version
that
was
written
five
years
ago,
and
this
one
is
more
of
the
has
the
more
of
the
positive
valence
talks
about
the
aspirational.
What
we
you
know
what
we
aspire
to
extending
respect
and
courtesy
to
our
colleagues
and
that
one
doesn't
really
have
any
enforcement
mechanism
or
our
personnel.
A
Then,
a
couple
of
years
ago
we
did
the
anti
harassment
policy
and
the
anti
harassment
procedures
and
that
one
is
more
focused
on
unwelcome
hostile
or
intimidating.
Behavior
actually
goes
into
some
great
detail,
defining
what
behavior
that
constitutes,
and
that's
the
one
that
created
the
role
of
Ombuds
team
to
field
confidential
complaints
about
behavior
among
individuals
and
then.
A
There's
been
some
recent
activity
to
try
to
stimulate
a
more
positive
environment
and
there's
also
a
few
ideas
floating
around
just
this
weekend
going
past
going
back
a
few
weeks
that
I
wanted
to
let
people
know
about
so.
The
first
is
discussion
between
area
directors
and
working
group
chairs
about
encouraging
professional
behavior
in
the
working
groups.
This
goes
back
to
IETF
103.
A
When
we
had
a
significant
plenary
discussion
about
this,
and
the
ISD
has
been
engaging
with
the
working
group
chairs
since
then
to
try
to
figure
out
some
guy,
some
guidance
essentially
to
help
worgen
group
chairs
feel
empowered
to
intervene
when
they
see
bad
behavior
and
their
working
groups
and
to
try
to
encourage
people
to
to
be
polite
and
respectful.
So
that's
something
that
the
area
directors
are
socializing,
essentially
one-to-one
with
their
working
group
chairs.
A
So
there
was
a
group
of
us
who
met
earlier
this
week
with
an
engineering
engineering
manager,
who's
responsible
for
positive
community
building
and
one
of
the
organizations
that
participates
in
the
IETF,
and
he
provided
a
incredible
wealth
of
insight
about
things
that
we
could
do.
He
had
read
two
months
worth
of
our
of
our
mailing
list,
so
he
was
well
educated
about
some
of
what's
going
on
here
and
I.
Think
we
may
continue
to
rely
on
his
guidance
and
potentially
seek
some
other
context
from
him
to
help
us.
You
know
develop
what
we
do
here.
A
We're
also
thinking
about
training
in
combination
with
that,
potentially
leveraging
some
professional
assistance
to
do
training
for
the
working
group
chairs
for
the
leadership,
possibly
for
others
who
might
be
interested
in
some
training
about
how
to
handle
specific
situations.
You
know-
maybe
some
roleplay
so
I'm
thinking
about
particular
scenarios
that
that
can
get
tricky
in
the
ITF.
A
There's
been
some
activity
around
rotating
the
sergeant's
at
arm's.
So
a
couple
of
years
ago,
in
in
May
of
2017,
we
got
two
new
sergeants
of
arms
after
the
previous
set
had
served
about
ten
years.
It's
time
for
a
refresh.
So
at
that
time,
Matt
Miller
and
Ben
Caidic
agreed
to
become
new
sergeant
at
arms.
For
the
ITF
discussion
list,
people
may
know
Ben
Caidic
as
the
security
ad.
He
was
actually
the
sergeant
at
arms
first
before
he
became
the
security
ad.
A
So
if
you
don't
want
to
be
a
security
ad,
you
might
want
to
think
about
not
becoming
a
sergeant
at
arms,
because
apparently
that's
the
thing
that
happens,
but
basically,
since
Ben
joined
the
iesg
last
year,
he's
been
asking
me
to
replace
him
and
it
has
not
been
the
highest
priority
on
my
list.
For
a
few
reasons,
there
were
other
things
going
on
is
one
of
those
reasons,
but
also
it
never
really
seemed
like
a
burning
issue,
because
we
have
two
sergeants
at
arms.
A
So
if
there
ever
seemed
like
there
was
a
situation
where,
where
it
didn't,
it
wouldn't
seem
correct
for
Ben
to
intervene,
then
we
always
had
Matt
and
of
course,
myself,
I'm
also
empowered
by
RC
3005
to
to
try
to
help
with
the
ITF
discussion
list.
So
as
many
things
in
the
IETF
didn't
seem
like
something
that
could
turn
into
a
burning
fire
until
it
ignited,
which
I
think
it
sort
of
has
recently
so
I'm
in
the
process
of
looking
for
a
new
sergeant
at
arms,
that's
already
started.
A
That
set
of
concepts
might
be
useful
and
then,
finally,
something
that
the
sergeant-at-arms
have
talked
about
this
week
and
I
think
the
working
group
chairs
may
have
as
well
is
clarifying
some
of
the
escalation
procedures.
So
in
the
past
it's
been
somewhat
ad
hoc.
As
to
you
know,
if
you
see
bad
behavior
on
a
mailing
list,
do
email
off
list.
First,
do
you?
How
do
you
send
the
signal
to
the
rest
of
the
community
that
something's
being
dealt
with
off
list,
at
least
among
the
sergeant's?
At
arm's?
It's
been
someone
ad
hoc
like.
A
If
we
had
already
sent
a
general
warning
on
lists,
then
maybe
we
would
carry
forward
on
list,
but
it
hasn't
been
consistent
in
every
case
and
I.
Think
that's
quite
problematic
and
that's
that's.
On
us
to
fix,
so
that's
I
think
something
that
that
we
can
try
to
do
across
the
board
in
terms
of
being
more
clear
about
what
the
escalation
procedures
are
for
all
these
different
bodies
that
that
handle
conduct
in
the
IETF,
so
those
are
just
some
things
that
have
been
going
on
and
some
other
potential
new
ideas.
A
D
Importantly,
the
goal
of
the
I
RTF
is
explicitly
not
to
seek
to
develop
or
influence
the
standards
process.
Rather,
we
try
to
promote
research
which
is
relevant
to
the
to
the
long
term
evolution
of
the
Internet,
and
we
do
this
in
the
form
of
various
research
groups,
the
applied
networking
research
prize
and
the
applied
networking
research
workshop
we've
tried
to
bring
academics
into
the
atf
community.
D
We
have
11
fully
chartered
research
groups
free
proposed
research
groups.
Six
of
these
are
still
to
meet
later.
In
the
week
we
have
the
crypto
forum,
research
group,
the
computation
in
the
network
proposed
research
group,
the
network
management
group,
the
network
coding
group
peffer,
where
networking
and
the
measurement
and
analysis
of
protocols
finishing
up
on
friday.
If
you're
interested
in
any
of
these
topics,
please
do
get
do
go
along.
D
In
addition
to
the
research
groups,
we
run
an
academic
conference
called
the
applied
networking
research
workshop,
which
we
organize
in
collaboration
with
ACM
sitcom.
This
took
place
earlier
this
week
on
the
monday
we
had
about
200
people
attending
the
workshop,
really
nice
set
of
papers
which
are
all
up
online.
We're
hoping
to
do
this
again
next
year,
at
the
summer,
ITF
in
Madrid
next
summer,
look
out
for
the
call
for
papers
just
after
Christmas,
most
likely.
D
Finally,
we
also
run
the
applied
networking
research
prize.
This
is
a
prize
awarded
for
recent
research
results
in
played
networking
research
which
are
relevant
to
bringing
into
the
a
IETF
the
IETF
community.
We
had
two
really
nice
talks.
Yesterday,
that's
at
Rosen
chef
gave
a
talk
on
NTP
security
with
paper
on
a
protocol
on
implementation
of
NTP
called
Chronos
and
CJ
Chung.
Give
it
a
really
nice
talk
on
the
role
of
registers
and
DNS
SEC
deployments.
D
We'll
have
a
couple
more
of
these
price
talks
at
the
next
IETF
in
Singapore
and
in
addition,
the
nominations
for
the
2020
applied.
Networking
research
price
will
open
in
September
October
time
frame.
So
if
you
know
of
any
good
applied
networking
research
papers,
please
look
out
for
the
call
for
nominations
and
let
us
know
so
we
can.
We
can
bring
those
people
into
the
the
IETF,
the
IRT
f
community
next
year.
Thank
you.
E
With
this,
I
have
been
working
with
with
the
community
with
the
RFC
production
center,
with
really
just
about
anybody.
I
can
on
taking
us
from
the
plaintext
to
ask
you
only
rfcs
that
we've
been
using
for
the
last
40-plus
years
to
XML
as
the
the
unchanging
underlying
format
and
having
outputs
of
text
PDF
a
three
as
our
rifle
target
and
HTML,
allowing
SVG
lineart
in
black
and
white.
No
we're
not
going
to
do
color,
because
color
is
thinking
hard
and
allowing
non
ASCII
characters.
E
We're
now
at
that
sort
of
that
last
little
bit
of
aligning
parts,
but
the
RFC
production
Center
is
is
targeting
the
end
of
August
this
year,
not
this
this
August
to
try
and
be
ready
to
be
ready
to
publish
v3
documents.
Now
whether
the
tools
will
be
ready.
Rather,
the
ndn
process
will
be
ready.
There's
still
a
couple
of
open
questions
about
some
details
in
the
vocabulary.
E
There's
a
couple
of
key
links
on
these
slides
and
if
you
as
I,
told
the
working
group
chairs
today,
if
you
take
nothing
else
away
from
my
talk,
I'd
really
like
you
to
be
looking
at
the
XML
to
RFC
v3
FAQ.
It
answers
a
lot
of
questions
that
people
come
to
the
desk
and
ask
about
and
I
think
it
will
help
you
and
your
authors
and
your
doctor,
shepherds
and
really
just
about
everybody
understand.
What's
going
on
a
couple,
other
really
quick
things
that
I'll
jump
through
since
I
know,
we
are
tight
on
time.
E
That
will
be
a
good
fit,
but
we're
still
working
on
that
because,
because
the
gods
are
unkind,
cluster
238
is
expected
to
be
releasing
right
about
now.
The
last
two
documents
are
scheduled
for
the
ISDN
iesg,
tell
a
chat
on
August,
8th
and
that
will
drop
about
2,000
pages
into
queue
thinks
so
implementation
expected
in
q3.
E
E
So,
in
terms
of
the
narrative
trends,
because
they're
sort
of
this
open
space
of-
if
you
could
do
one
thing
to
improve
this-
you
know
what
what
would
you
see
done?
Really,
the
one
thing
that
we
hear
consistently
is
improve
off
48.
Now
what
improve
off
48
means
pretty
much
I.
Think
every
individual
who's
ever
put
something
through
the
queue
has
a
different
opinion
on
what
that
means.
E
So
this
is
a
really
big
project
and
I
highly
recommend
that
this
be
sort
of
the
the
priority
for
where
we're
my
biggest
priority
ended
up
being
in
terms
of
projects.
The
format
work,
I
think
this
is
your
next
big
thing
that
you
should
pay
attention
to
to
relieve
this
particular
friction
from
the
RFC
publication
process,
and
someone
did
say
that
more
chocolate
would
be
helpful.
Just
just
noting
that
one
wanted
to
note
that
there
is
a
projects.
E
If
those
of
you
who
are
following
tools
that
may
know
about
the
inline
errata
project
code
has
been
written
by
Soaring
hot,
consulting
that's
Jim
shod
to
create
files
with
erotic,
Corrections,
inline
verified
only.
This
is
very
sandbox
II
and
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
highlight
the
fact
that
no,
you
can't
refer
to
these
as
the
final
document,
but
enough
people
find
this
to
be
just
useful
implementation,
help
that
we
want
to
make
that
available.
So
that's
that's
something
that's
happening
now.
I
do
have
a
call
for
comment
open.
E
E
I
thought
it
would
be
just
it
was
fun
to
put
together
what
what
have
we
accomplished
because
it
wasn't
just
me
it
was
this
room.
It
was
the
RFC
production
centre
and
we've
done.
We've
done
some
pretty
major
things
every
year
since
I
started,
we've
gotten.
Finally,
gotten
a
new
website.
I,
don't
know
if
you
all
some
of
you
might
remember
the
old
website.
E
Digital
archiving
is
actually
a
pretty
specialized
field
and
it
wasn't
while
that
is
one
of
the
key
reasons
that
the
RFC
editor
exists,
to
maintain
the
archive
of
this
material
ongoing
in
the
future.
It's
not
really
our
area
of
specialty,
so
we've
partnered
with
a
commuter
Computer,
History
Museum
and
with
the
National
Library
in
Sweden
to
just
keep
ingesting
our
documents
and
make
sure
we
have
other
ways
that
they
can
be
stored
in
perpetuity
and
the
new
RFC
format
rolling
out
this
year.
I
really
wanted
to.
E
G
E
G
A
H
So,
as
you
know,
one
of
the
things
the
a
stands
for
is
appointments.
In
this
case
we
wanted
to
let
the
community,
you
know
that
Russ,
Hasley
and
Barry
liebe
would
be
reappointed
to
the
CCG
that
Richard
Barnes
will
serve
a
second
term
on
the
I
support.
Thank
you
for
service
there
and
that
Jim
Reed
has
been
reappointed
to
the
ican.
Our
zerk.
The
last
thing
on
the
appointment
slide
is
that
the
a
B
is
also
currently
seeking
feedback
on
the
ITF
delegate
to
the
ICANN
2020
NomCom.
The
previous
person
was
timed
out.
H
So
these
are
all
new
candidates,
pleased
to
take
a
look
on
the
document
side,
RC,
85,
46
and
RCA
558
were
issued
during
this
period.
We
actually
talked
about
them
in
the
draft
stage
and
the
last
one,
so
I'm
not
gonna,
go
into
them,
as
Heather
just
pointed
out,
50
years
of
our
FCS
is
currently
in
community
commentary,
there's
also
some
other
ones:
the
harmful
consequences
of
the
robustness
principle,
the
principles
for
operation
of
I
Anna
registries-
that
one
in
particular
is
just
an
update
to
deal
with
the
eye
asset
changes.
H
So
please
don't
assume
that
there's
a
major
change
in
operation
there
and,
lastly,
document
on
the
long-term
viability
of
protocol
extension
mechanisms,
both
the
stack
evolution
and
privacy
and
security
programs
have
been
operating
for
a
number
of
years
and
they
have
fulfilled
their
basic
goals.
Each
of
them
was
an
evolution
of
a
previous
set
of
programs,
and
our
current
plan
is
to
conclude
both
of
those
in
the
near
future
and
then
carry
out
any
future
work
in
other
programs
or
structures.
H
Just
to
let
you
know,
there
were
two
workshops
in
the
recent
timeframe:
DDR
debtor
was
hosted
by
Nokia
in
Finland
in
June
and
a
bunch
of
the
explorations
on
it.
All
the
papers
are
online.
Please
feel
free
to
take
a
look
among
the
ones
that
we
think
are
most
pressing
are
really
that
the
architectural
changes
implied
in
moving
functionality
up
the
stack
mean
that
we're
likely
to
see
changes
in
deployment
patterns
that
result
in
consolidation
and
centralization.
Those
in
turn
create
fragility
and
other
kinds
of
concerns.
You
heard
some
of
the
security
concerns
earlier
today.
H
As
you
know,
the
IAB
is
also
chartered
as
a
committee
of
the
Internet
Society
is
an
advisory
committee
to
the
board
and
we
have
been
consulting
with
them
on
a
number
of
things,
in
particular
again
on
consolidation
matter
that
was
raised
in
the
Internet
Society
in
the
global
internet
report.
So
the
last
slide
on
this
builds
on
what
heather
was
saying
earlier
about
the
RFC
setter
series
editor
search.
H
First,
we
regret
that
we're
having
to
do
a
search,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
engage
in
an
open
discussion
with
you
on
how
we
can
move
forward.
There's
a
lot
of
time
at
the
end
of
this.
For
that,
but
as
noted
in
the
conversation
with
John
cleanse
in'
and
again
with
brian
carpenter
later,
we
don't
think
that
that
conversation
is
going
to
end
tonight.
H
There
are
other
people
who
can't
be
in
this
room
with
us,
either
for
Geographic
reasons,
time
reasons
or
because
they're
parts
of
communities
who
are
customers
rather
than
authors
of
RFC's,
and
it
will
take
some
time
to
carry
out
that
conversation.
There
is,
however,
a
time
critical
decision
to
be
made
on
whether
to
go
ahead
with
the
recruitment
of
a
new,
our
RSC,
to
facilitate
the
discussion
on
what
changes
might
be
made
and,
in
particular
to
be
present
in
the
system
until
community
discussion
on
the
larger
issues
may
have
concluded
the
other
possibility.
H
Olaf
cokeman,
who
served
as
the
acting
RSC
earlier
and
is
one
of
the
two
editors
of
the
currently
governing
document,
66
35,
we'll
present
a
very
short
review
of
the
current
model
for
those
of
you
who
may
not
understand
how
the
different
moving
parts
work
together
and
frankly,
some
of
it
is
pretty
complicated
and
we
hope
then,
to
use
the
Open
Mic
time
productively
to
see
how
we
can
make
this
go
better
in
the
future.
Thank
you.
I
I
And,
of
course,
we
couldn't
hold
the
meeting
without
the
equipment
and
I'm
not
sure
if
I'm,
you
all
had
a
chance
to
make
it
to
the
Hoff
earlier.
But
it's
that
equipment
that
it's
donated
by
the
sponsors
that
really
make
it
make
each
meeting
seamless,
because
I
mean
the
equipment
is
taken
from
one
place
or
the
other,
and
it
just
makes
a
big
difference
in
how
the
the
Internet
is
coming
into
the
into
the
venue
and
in
particular,
for
this
meeting.
I
I
I
I
I
I
And
this
is
a
quick
meetings
snapshot
of
what's
going
on
so
far
paid
attendance
is
10,
1059,
remote
participants,
651
visa
ello
eyes
that
were
issued
166
and
then
for
registration
revenue,
that's
779
105,
which
is
97,000
730
above
the
budget.
So
we
are
really
happy
about
that
and
then
sponsorship
came
just
under
our
target.
But
those
are
our
numbers
for
that
and
again
the
registration
breakdown.
J
Thank
you
very
much
Alyssa.
So
we've
gotten
a
lot
done
so
we've
been
in
place
now
for
four
months
and
bootstrapping.
An
organization
is
always
fun
and
there's
a
lot
of
work
activity
at
the
beginning,
and
we
are
in
that
highly
intensive
phase,
so
I
have
a
bunch
of
updates
to
provide
first,
who
was
on
the
board.
You'll
see
some
of
us
on
the
stage
Peter
later
on,
Peter
is
remote,
so
you'll
see
him
on
the
video
screen
and
Maya
is
here
as
well.
J
J
First,
we're
trying
to
provide
a
lot
more
advance
notice
of
when
we're
meeting
and
then
what
we're
going
to
be
working
on
so
we're
doing
a
lot
better
in
terms
of
publishing
an
advance
schedule
of
meetings
and,
of
course,
agendas
and
we're
working
to
get
better
there.
So
that's
one
of
the
improvements
that
community
asked
for
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
work
done,
so
we
had
a
two-day
board
meeting
in
May
to
kick
everything
off.
J
We
did
some
assessments
to
basically
look
at
our
strengths
and
weaknesses
as
an
organization
and
the
external
environment
and
how
it
may
affect
the
ITF
in
the
long
term
and
how
we
want
to
mitigate
those
risks.
To
the
extent
there
are
any
we
issued
a
bunch
of
RFPs,
we
began
a
search
for
an
executive
director
and
I'll,
give
detailed
updates
on
some
of
these
later
we
put
in
place
a
whole
bunch
of
insurance
coverages
that
are
required
and
that
we're
also
recommended
we
began
a
policy
consultation
process
and
created
a
consultation
process
as
well.
J
Of
course,
we
had
the
unexpected
export
regulation,
thing
come
up,
and
so
we
had
to
deal
with
that
on
an
ad-hoc
basis
and
we've
done
some
contract.
Extensions
and
I'll
talk
later
about
the
last
item.
So
in
the
next
few
months,
what
is
the
next
few
months?
Look
like
for?
We've
got
an
executive
director,
a
permanent
one,
to
put
in
place.
We
need
to
institute
and
finalize
the
policies
that
we
have
and
a
bunch
of
other
things
that
are
here.
It's
a
lot
and
so
I'm
gonna
talk
about
some
of
the
details
in
a
second.
J
This
is
the
budget
and
where
we
stand
all
of
these
every
time
that
we
meet
every
month,
we
publish
these
suffice
to
say
basically
were
on
budget.
That's
really
the
key
message
here.
You
don't
need
to
know
much
more
for
now.
The
budget
process
for
2020
is
about
to
begin
and
I
guess.
I
would
really
say
to
the
interim
board
that
preceded
us.
J
Thanks
for
putting
us
in
a
good
position
and
thanks
for
I
Sauk
support
and
sponsor
support,
you
know
for
basically
putting
us
in
a
firm
footing
for
this
year,
where
we
don't
feel
like
we've
just
formed,
and
we
have
to
go
ask
for
more
money
or
something
like
that.
So
2020
budgeting
will
be
important
for
us
in
terms
of
operating
reserve.
This
has
been
talked
about
before
we
have
one
that's
good.
J
As
of
now,
it's
really
invested
in
in
short-term
instruments,
and
so
one
of
the
to-do
items
or
actions
that
we
have
is
to
develop
an
investment
policy
strategy
to
really
guide.
What
do
we
do
with
that
money?
How
much
of
it
has
to
be
in
a
short
term
investment?
So
you
can
get
at
it
quickly
if
you
need
to
in
an
emergency
versus
what
can
be
invested
in
a
more
long
term
basis
in
terms
of
the
endowment.
This
is
really
new
news,
so
thank
you
too
I
sock.
J
Just
days
ago,
they
were
able
to
complete
the
transition
of
the
ietf
endowment
from
the
Internet
Society
to
the
ITF,
and
that
was
a
big
deal.
It
took
a
lot
of
doing
on
the
part
of
I
Sauk
staff,
and
we
really
appreciate
that.
I
will
say
that
these
numbers,
as
you
look
at
them,
probably
don't
make
much
sense.
In
some
cases
they
don't
really
quite
add
up
because
of
some
of
the
oddities
here
and
I
will
sort
of
say.
The
key
here
is
that
the
current
balance
is
what's
important
to
pay
attention
to.
J
We
have
roughly
three
million
dollars
in
the
endowment
and
if
our
goal
is
to
be
able
to
fund
annual
operations
out
of
the
income
generated
by
the
endowment,
we
have
nowhere
near
enough
money.
So
we
need
to
really
in
the
next
few
in
the
next
year,
develop
a
strategy
for
how
are
we
going
to
go
about
raising
more
funds
for
this
endowment
so
that
that
might
become
a
possibility
and,
of
course,
as
well?
How
should
that
money
be
invested
over
time,
similar
to
the
the
fund
that
we
talked
about
a
moment
ago?
J
This
reserved
for
the
endowment
itself.
We
need
an
investment
policy
and
at
the
at
the
current
time,
we've
really
just
mirrored
how
I
sock
had
that
money
invested
as
a
placeholder
until
we
can
get
to
focus
on
this,
so
we've
got
a
lot
to
do.
Of
course,
we
reached
out
to
the
major
donors
and
I
think
it's
important
to
recognize
their
generosity.
J
So
far,
that's
really
important,
both
the
individual
donors,
as
well
as
the
institutional
organizations
that
backed
the
endowment,
and
we
appreciate
that
and
we'll
be
working
with
them
as
we
develop
this
sort
of
future
strategy
and
figuring
out
what
new
organizations
might
be
future
donors
for
this,
the
Secretariat
services
RFP.
We
put
that
out.
Obviously,
the
current
secretary
that's
been
doing
a
fantastic
job.
This
meeting
is
another
example
of
how
smoothly
everything
just
runs.
J
Just
as
you
know,
things
happen,
a
lot
of
things
got
bundled
up
into
contracts
and
it
can
make
things
complicated
to
understand,
and
so
we've
tried
to
break
those
up.
It's
not
any
reflection
that
things
are
going
badly
in
any
sense,
it's
just
we're
trying
to
simplify
things
and
make
them
easier
to
manage
and
administer.
J
J
It
just
means
that
in
the
short
term
for
us,
we've
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do
to
sort
of
sort
through
all
of
those
candidates,
but
it's
amazing
to
me
and
I
think
we're
again,
as
I
said,
really
humbled
by
the
level
of
interest
in
that
and
it's
it's
really
great
policies
consultation.
So
we
began
that
in
the
early
part
of
June-
and
this
was
the
first
time
that
we
did
it
so
the
first
thing
we
did
upfront
and
said:
what
should
our
process
look
like
for
consultation?
J
This
came
out
really
in
the
ISO
to
working
group
the
expectations
that
the
community
had
about
how
they
wanted
to
be
involved
and
consulted
with,
and
so
we
created
a
project
on
github.
That's
where
the
documents
went.
People
could
submit
issues
there
if
they
wanted
to.
We
also
created
a
general
consultation,
email
list
and
comments
could
go
there.
We
did
a
live
webinar,
which
was
then
recorded
and
available
for
people
to
watch
later
on
and
we
began
then
a
month-long
consultation
period
and
where
we
stand
now,
we've
been
a
bit
busy
preparing
for
this
meeting.
J
K
Alright,
this
will
be
a
quick
update
on
the
NomCom
committee
that
we're
forming
for
this
upcoming
selection
year.
First
of
all,
I
like
coming
to
Montreal
in
the
summer.
It's
a
much
nicer
time
of
year
and
it's
a
nice
place
to
gather
for
the
first
time
with
the
new
committee.
Sorry,
the
NomCom.
We
we've
got
our
NomCom
selections
of
in
terms
of
the
nominee
me
voting
members
and
non
voting.
Members
have
all
ready
to
go.
I've
met
them.
All
this
week
has
been
great.
K
That
band
is
together
and
we're
ready
to
do
a
lot
of
work
this
year.
It's
a
lot
of
work
for
the
folks,
they're
gonna
put
in
a
lot
of
time,
and
it's
I'm
very,
very
happy
with
the
momentum
we
have.
This
is
a
list
of
the
both
voting
and
non-voting
members.
If,
actually
you
don't
mind
standing
up
in
the
audience,
so
people
can
recognize
them
for
their
hard
work
as
they're
going
to
be
in
many
many
meetings.
K
They've
decided
to
slave
a
little
extra
for
the
next
year,
so
I'm
excited
as
we
get
going,
we've
convinced
them
to
volunteer
and
they
have
and
we
get
to
take
a
lot
of
feedback,
and
so
that
will
be
something
a
lot
of
time
reading
through
all
the
community
feedback
we
enjoy.
Having
a
lot
of
feedback
I'll
remind
the
community
many
times
that
we
will
love
to
have
feedback.
It's
the
way,
we're
able
to
understand
what
the
community
needs
and
wants,
and
for
us
to
be
able
to
do
the
right
thing
for
the
community.
K
For
this
upcoming
year
we
have
a
number
of
positions
to
fill
that
includes
the
IAB
we
have
six
positions.
They're
listed
also
are
the
IHG
positions
in
the
area
director
positions
that
we're
going
to
fill
for
this
year.
We
are
also
going
to
fill
a
single
LLC
board
member
position
and
an
IETF
trust
position.
K
Those
are
three
year
selections,
whereas
the
standard
two
year
apply
for
the
IB
and
the
isg
when
we're
ready-
and
we
have
the
nominees
available-
and
we
will
do
the
call
later
on
in
August,
I'll
pull
up
the
current
draft
schedule
in
a
moment.
We're
gonna
ask
community
to
go
up
to
the
website
and
please
bring
in
your
feedback.
Please
be
diligent
if
you
can
be
expressive
and
provide
as
many
details
you
can,
that
helps
us
kind
of
Whittle
through
and
understand.
What
is
it
that
you're
thinking?
What
is
that
you
want?
K
This
is
a
quick
list.
It's
on
the
web
page
a
little
hard
to
read
here,
fonts
a
little
small,
but
we
have
a
proposed
schedule.
We'll
get
that
hardened
out
over
the
next
couple
of
the
weeks
and
get
that
make
sure
we
have
it
firmed
up
a
lot
of
work
as
we
get
into
the
next
couple
of
months.
We'll
get
the
questionnaires
done,
we'll
do
the
call
for
our
nominees
and
it
will
prepare
for
interviews
or
the
majority
of
interviews
in
Singapore,
so
it'll
be
a
big
week
for
the
NomCom.
K
Just
so
folks
understand
the
first
year,
which
was
last
year,
we
we
filled
three,
a
1,
a
2
and
a
3
year
role
for
both
the
I,
ITF
trust
and
the
see,
and
that
was
to
be
able
to
seed
it
so
that
we
can
have
a
single
nominee
moving
forward
each
successive
year.
So
this
year,
we'll
fill
the
one
role
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
but
last
year
we
had
done
the
three,
the
a
one-time
basis
to
kind
of
seed
it,
for,
though,
we'll
have
an
offsetting
cast
of
board
members.
K
So,
as
a
reminder,
feedback
feedback
is
amazing.
I
put
it
three
times
there.
You
can
see
how
important
it
is.
The
other
thing
I
would
like
to
remind
everyone
is:
please
please,
please.
If
you
know
someone
was
qualified
and
you
think
that
they
would
be
a
great
candidate
for
one
of
the
roles.
Please
nominate
them.
You
can
technically
nominate
yourself
as
well
if
you
feel
you're
qualified,
but
please
look
around
talk
to
your
fellow
IETF
firs,
it's
great
to
have
a
wide
cast
of
nominees.
K
L
Good
afternoon
so
for
ITF
106
Nokia
will
be
pleased
to
welcome
you
in
Singapore.
So
Nokia
is
not
immediately
related
to
Singapore,
but
we
do
have
a
location
out
there,
which
is
serving
the
Asian
markets.
So
we
are
kind
of
locals
Singapore
in
November,
so
we
have
already
been
there.
We
know
how
it
is
it's
an
enjoyable
place.
We
know
that
there
is
a
diverse
culture,
plenty
of
good
food
and
we
may
not
notice
when
we
are
freezing
in
our
meeting
rooms,
but
it's
also
tropical
weather
out
there.
L
So
you
will
find
out
that
there
are
tropical
forests
and
you
have
beaches,
so
you
can
get
ready
for
that.
If
you
don't,
if
you're
not
too
busy
working
we'll
have
during
this
me
the
meeting
will
you
have
a
social
event
just
across
the
bay
from
the
hotel
in
the
Singapore
art,
Science
Museum?
They
have
an
exposition.
An
exhibition
called
future
world
where
art
with
science,
which
is
very
apt
for
ITF
and
I-
know
that
you
have
a
lot
to
discuss
tonight.
So
I
will
not
take
much
more
time.
See
you
in
Singapore.
Thank
you.
A
J
N
J
M
Leslie
deagle
Jason,
you
mentioned
in
your
remarks
that,
among
the
things
that
the
very
very
busy
new
LLC
board
is
doing,
is
looking
at
planning
how
to
simplify
the
contracts.
I,
don't
like
to
hear
that
expressed
in
terms
of
what
is
the
strategic
level
objective
that
the
LLC
board
has
and
how
is
your
new
executive
director
going
to
implement
it
so.
M
Is
the
LLC
board
worried
about
what
the
contracts
looked
like?
It
seems
to
me
that
that's
dangerously
close
to
getting
into
the
kind
of
nitpicking
stuff,
as
opposed
to
the
high
level
strategic
stuff
that
the
LLC
board
was
designed
to
do.
But
I
may
have
missed
the
point
and
I'd
like
to
hear
how
you
have
a
strategic
objective
that
you're
going
to
get
the
new
executive
director
to
implement.
J
You
know
from
a
contract
standpoint.
It's
it's
sort
of.
You
know
the
more
complicated
that
you
make
a
contract
the
harder
it
is
to
understand
the
harder.
It
is
to
make
sure
that
everyone
agrees
and
is
aligned
on
what
the
responsibilities
are
and
so
on
so
I
think.
That's
the
idea
and
breaking
them
apart
is
making
them
a
little
bit
simpler,
more
comprehensible,
okay,.
M
J
O
Can
compete
both
sorry
yeah,
so,
as
people
may
have
seen
on
the
ietf
list,
I've
put
out
a
draft
called
draft
Lear
we've
got
to
stop
meeting
like
this
now.
The
purpose
of
that
trap
is
really
simply
to
engage
the
LLC
to
start
and
UD,
perhaps
to
start
thinking
about
new
modalities
of
how
we
should
be
meeting
with
an
eye
towards
it's
not
only
effectiveness,
but
also
how
we
preserve
the
environment
cost
and
a
litany
of
other
things.
O
The
purpose
of
the
draft
is
not
to
specify
answers,
in
fact,
I
don't
even
know
if
we
have
I
have
the
right
questions
in
the
draft,
but
rather
to
have
somebody
who
can
look
at
this
in
a
long-term
way.
As
you
put
up
a
list
of
meeting
dates,
we
tend
to
get
backed
up
in
terms
of
you
know,
thinking
three
four
or
five
years
in
advance,
so
any
change
we
might
want
to
even
consider
even
an
experimental
level
can
take
a
while.
O
J
Thanks
I'll
say:
certainly
we
definitely
noticed
the
draft
I
thought
it
was
interesting
to
read
and
we're
watching
all
the
community
discussions.
So
you
know,
as
community
consensus
develops,
you
know
that
will
help
provide
direction
timing-wise
to
the
extent
that
we
wanted
to
follow
some
of
your
recommendations,
for
example
around
a
consultant
to
help
do
some
assessment
or
something
given
that
we're
beginning
the
budget
process
soon.
J
A
You
know
we
have
a
meeting
location
policy
which
calls
for
a
specific
rotation
on
specific
time
scale.
So
there
is
some
intersection
between
your
proposal
and
that
and
that
would
be
system
since
the
policies
documented
in
what
is
now
going
to
be
a
consensus
RFC.
That
would
be
a
matter
for
community
consensus
to
be
determined.
O
I
totally
understand,
but
we
don't.
The
point
is
actually
just
to
figure
out
where
we
might
want
to
go.
The
the
draft
basically
calls
for
the
for
the
LLC
and
the
ISU
to
maybe
bring
some
ideas
back
to
the
community
and
then
to
take
it
forward
from
there
so
sort
of
step
by
step,
and
if
we
need
to
make
changes
in
documents
later,
we
do
that
later.
Okay,.
P
You
know
basically
the
first
LLC
budget
was
almost
eight
point:
seven
million
dollars
so
pretty
much
one
point:
six
million
dollars
more
to
have
the
LLC,
and
it
seems
like
quite
a
lot
to
me.
So
I
was
I
to
questions
relating
to
this
I'd
like
you
to
tell
us
why
it's
going
up
so
much
and
I'd
also
like
to
know
why
you
didn't
talk
about
this
ever
earlier,
because
it's
a
you
know
a
pretty
significant
change.
P
J
Is
a
lot
of
money,
sure
sure
so
I'm
going
to
defer
to
our
treasurer
in
a
second
I
would
say
that
the
budget
was
developed
by
the
interim
board.
You
know
so
it
was
established.
You
know
late
last
year
and
I
think
has
been
discussed.
You
know
since
that
time,
but
Shawn
do
you
want
to
speak
to
I?
Think.
Q
P
That's
a
pretty
in
general
answer:
I
would
like
to
sort
of
get
a
lot
more
specifics
from
that
to
under,
and
what's
I
mean
this
is
a
significant
increase
in
the
overhead
costs
of
the
IDF.
So
I
think
that
you
know
I'm
not
expecting
you
to
do
it.
This
second,
but
I,
think
some
more
more
responses
of
why
why
these
extra
expenses
are
being
kurd
and
what
we're
getting
for
it,
and
you
know
why
it's
justified.
Thank
you.
A
We
can
follow
up
in
more
detail,
but
just
a
few
things,
I
think.
As
you
know,
Bob
the
ITF
budget
has
increased
every
year
as
long
as
I
can
remember
not
by
this
much,
but
it's
not
as
if
the
entire
increase
is
attributable
solely
to
the
transition
to
the
LLC,
because
it
increases
every
year.
We
did
talk
about
this
when
we
were
forming
the
LLC
and
you
know
in
the
working
group
process
and
on
in
the
interim
board,
I
think
I'm,
the
only
person
here
who
was
on
the
interim
board.
A
So
so
there
was
a
bunch
of
discussion
about
this
at
the
time
when
we
created
the
budget
a
year
ago
and
then
and
obviously
a
bunch
of
it
is
accountable
to
salaries
that
we
that
we
budgeted
for
this
year,
but
aren't
actually
paying
out
because
we
haven't
hired
the
people.
We
didn't
know
the
timing
of
the
hiring,
but
we
had
to
budget
as
if
it
was
a
whole
years
worth
of
expenditure,
even
though
the
people
haven't
been
hired
and
then.
A
J
R
Bishop
I
wanted
to
follow
up
on
your
comment
that
the
endowment
needs
to
grow
further.
The
endowment
webpage
has
not
been
accepting
donations
since
around
the
end
of
last
year,
and
now
the
endowment
web
page
as
of
sometime
very
recently,
gives
you
a
certain
error
and
then
a
404.
If
you
proceed
past
that
yep
I
kind
of
think,
if
we
want
more
money,
we
might
want
to
start
accepting
it
yeah.
J
So
you
know,
that's
gonna
go
out
eventually
to
community
comment
and
you
know
we're
in
an
interim
period,
but
I
agree.
You
can't
accept
more
money
if
you
don't
have
a
page
to
accept
it.
I
think,
though,
at
the
same
time,
a
lot
of
the
the
places
that
we're
going
to
go
aren't
places
that
might
donate
on
a
webpage.
So
you
know
it
depends
what
our
target
audience
is
and
that's
part
of
that
assessment
that
will
do.
J
S
In
what
way
are
two
contracts
that
they
find
to
functions
and
they
interface
between
them
simpler
than
one
contracts
that
defines
two
functions.
I
mean
I
was
a
bit
confused
by
this
striving
towards
making
more
contracts,
because
my
experience
is
that
more
contracts
creates
more
interfaces,
which
creates
more
confusion
with
grapes,
more
trouble
and
the
last
thing
you
want
a
trouble
and
it's
micromanagement
by
the
board.
Cate
comment:
yeah.
J
Peaches
does
apply
to
that.
It's
very
complicated
when,
over
time
you
keep
adding
to
an
existing
contract
and
at
some
point
the
underlying
contract
isn't
fit
for
the
purpose
of
some
of
the
add-on
services
and
so
we're
trying
to
bring
clarity
here.
It's
not
about
micromanagement,
and
you
know
we're
trying
to
again
make
it
more
clear
and
easy
to
understand
over
the
long
term.
So
I.
S
J
Q
Y
J
M
It
was
interesting
to
hear
that
you've
had
some
input
from
professional
communications
management.
People
I'd
be
curious
to
know
what
it
was
that
they
shared
with
you
and
you
know.
Could
you
share
it
with
us
and
in
large
part,
because,
while
I
recognize
this
is
the
is
G?
This
is
the
current
is
G
in
March.
There
will
be
a
slightly
different
eyes
she,
so
it's
sort
of
like
educating
all
of
us
educates
not
only
this
is
G,
but
all
future
ones
to
thanks
totally.
A
AC
Man
Thompson
to
further
Leslie's
point
I,
think
that
I
personally
like
to
make
a
commitment
here
and
I
encourage
others
to
do
the
same.
I
felt
constrained
for
in
the
recent
discussions.
I
didn't
feel
like
I
could
say
anything
and
I
realized
recently
slightly
in
the
conversation
with
Mike
that
we
had
earlier
this
week
that
standing
by
and
letting
this
bad
behavior
occur
is
me
being
part
of
the
problem.
AD
Dan
Danville
damaged
about
the
some
feedback
from
ASEAN
Nam
Kham
member
recruiting
candidates
for
ad
positions
is
really
hard,
as
you
probably
know,
but
I
really
want
the
whole
community
to
hear
that,
because
lately,
it
was
a
very
interesting
comment
that
I
heard
when
trying
to
get
some
people
to
nominate
for
a
be
and
asking
them
if
they
will
be
interested.
Oh,
it's
a
career
death
sentence.
I
still
want
to
do
development,
work
and.
AD
We
have
to
think
about
that
how
we
can
solve
that.
The
other
part
also
what
the
ADIZ
are
saying.
Well,
there's
one
thing
that
is
in
the
job
description
in
the
other
part,
what
is
the
actual
work
that
we
have
to
do?
There
is
a
very
specific
way
how
to
lead
a
volunteer
organization,
and
we
have
to
think
about
that
learn
how
to
do
that
and
then,
based
on
that
grow
and
groom.
You
know
the
potential
leaders,
but
it
is
I.
AD
A
I
think
I
mean
I,
think
we
agree
with
you,
I
think.
Hopefully,
no
one
up
here
feels
like
it's
a
death
sentence,
but
to
the
extent
that
people
feel
that
way,
that's
it
that's
a
major
issue.
It's
it.
It's
been
an
ongoing
discussion
in
the
IHG
and
and
we
would
welcome
the
discussion
with
the
community
about
it
as
well.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
cut
the
mic
line
because
we're
supposed
to
stick
to
ten
minutes
and
Kirsty
you're.
Next,
thank.
AE
You
Kirsty
P
NCSC,
so
I
just
wanted
to
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
said
about
conduct.
It's
been
really
good
to
see
that
being
taken
seriously
at
this
IETF
on
meaningless
as
well
I
had
a
suggestion
you
did
mention
before
and
ways
to
prevent,
or
you
know,
tackle
bad
behavior,
and
your
idea
here
so
I
just
wanted
to
pitch
my
idea,
which
was
to
create
an
everyday
sexism
style,
but
every
day
at
IETF.
AF
Daniel
can
go
more,
so
I
am
very
happy
to
hear
that
this
community
is
starting
to
take
our
internal
conduct
more
seriously.
We
do
a
lot
of
work
in
the
public
and
we
are
an
extremely
unrepresentative
sample
of
the
people
who
depend
on
our
work
and
there
are
a
lot
of
people
who
might
be
interested
in
being
here
who
are
turned
off
by
all
kinds
of
stuff.
That
happens
here,
probably
just
a
technical
jargon,
but
the
the
aggressiveness
that
we
sometimes
treat
each
other.
AF
Even
when
we
know
each
other
well
is
really
off-putting,
especially
to
some
newcomers.
So
I
think
we
would
do
well
to
take
that
seriously
and
think
about
the
way
that
the
conduct
not
only
has
an
effect
on
those
of
us
who
are
here
and
I'm
sure
we've
all
been
burned
by
some
of
this
conduct,
but
I
hope
that
we're
thinking
about
the
conduct
in
respect
to
the
people
who
aren't
here
and
whether
we
want
more
people
to
join
us.
AG
Inger
Martin
and
EKG
have
basically
said
everything
you
want
to
say,
but
I'm
gonna
say
it
again,
because
it's
worth
repeating
I've
been
with
this
community
for
19
years
and
I.
Don't
really
pay
attention
or
listen
to
the
ietf
mailing
list.
I'm
not
saying
this
because
I'm
proud
of
it
I'm
saying
this,
because
I
can't
keep
up
with
the
what
I
see
on
the
mailing
list,
oftentimes
separately,
I
wanna
applaud,
but
I
won't.
I
I
do
want
to
say
that
this
is
what
I
saw
on
the
slides
was
very
encouraging.
AG
This
is
to
me
the
leadership,
taking
some
some
action
on
sort
of
figuring
out
how
to
deal
with
contact,
but
what
I
saw
the
slides
was
more
of
a
safeguard
against
unprofessional
behavior.
Actually,
making
this
place
positive
and
encouraging
for
others
to
contribute
in
is
something
that
the
community,
each
one
of
us
has
to
do
and
to
that
extent
the
minimum
that
I
can
do
is
to
make
sure
that
if
I
see
somebody
being
abrasive
or
continuously
abrasive,
I
will
call
it
out
I'll
at
least
talk
to
them
and
I'll.
AH
Mark
Nottingham
I
have
a
suggestion,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
a
good
one
but
I
think
it's
worth
thinking
about,
and
John
referred
earlier
to
the
IETF
main
list.
It's
a
free-for-all.
I
appreciate
the
focus
on
behavior
that
we're
seeing
this
is
really
good,
but
I
can't
help
but
wonder
if
it's
really
representative
of
community
more
anecdotally
I
hear
of
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
subscribe
to
it
because
they
find
it
too
gladiatorial
toxic.
AH
Whatever
word
you
want
to
use
and
as
a
result,
I
wonder
if
we're
getting
good
technical
input
there,
especially
regarding
IETF
last
calls
that's
one
of
the
purposes
of
the
list.
It's
supposed
to
be
the
community's
review
of
the
technical
work,
that's
happening
here
so
to
me
it
seems
like
we
should
have
a
list,
that's
dedicated
to
that
purpose
and
more
heavily
moderated
than
the
IETF
main
list,
so
that
the
participants
who
can't
put
up
with
that
level
of
whatever
it
is,
can
still
go
and
have
a
voice.
In
last
call
discussions.
X
I'll,
take
the
applause
and
lack
of
booze
to
support
for
what
Mark
said.
I
support
it
also
I
think
the
discussions
that
happen
on
the
IETF
list
are
important
discussions
and
while
they
may
veer
off
into
the
weeds
and
particular
discussions
might
be
annoying
on
the
whole,
we
need
it,
but
I
agree
completely
that
we
should
make
the
I
the
last
call
comments
and
the
threads
that
come
out
of
that
have
their
own
home.
So
I
would
like
to
support
that
I'd,
like
the
is
G
to
do
that.
A
H
H
H
AH
AJ
AK
Hello,
so
yeah,
my
name
is
Olaf
cold
man,
I
work
for
the
Internet
Society,
but
I
don't
speak
on
their
behalf
and
specifically,
look
now
I'm
here
as
the
forming
a
former
acting
RFC
series
editor
and
also
as
a
co-editor
of
the
current
model.
Drc
a
data
model
version
2,
there's
something
to
unpack
in
here.
AK
AK
What
we
are
talking
about
when
we
have
the
discussion
at
the
mic
lines
in
a
few
minutes
from
now
so
part
of
a
longer
conversation,
a
conversation
that
started
50
years
ago,
and
it
has
gone
through
several
iterations
in
trying
to
institutionalize
it
in
a
way
that
is
suitable
for
the
community.
The
broader
community.
AK
This
model
are
documented
in
RFC
66
35
has
now
been
in
operation
for
about
seven
years,
I
believe
the
first
ideas
around
this
model
are
documented
in
RFC
4844,
and
it
basically
describes
what
it
is
that
an
RFC
editor
is
expected
to
do
so.
What
I'm
telling
you
today
is
a
bit
of
a
combination
between
RFC,
84,
44
and
RFC
6655.
AK
So
when
we
talk
about
the
RFC
editor,
we
talk
about
a
function,
a
function
that
used
to
be
performed
by
one
person,
but
that
has
evolved
and
what
the
RC
editor
essentially
does.
It
takes
raw
input
text
in
the
form
of
internet
drafts
and
it
spits
out
RFC's.
That
is
the
most
simplistic
way
of
thinking
about
the
RFC
era.
AK
But
of
course
there
is
structure
to
this
first,
where
does
the
income?
The
input
come
from?
The
input
comes
from
you
in
the
form
of
ITF
documents,
as
approved
by
the
IHT,
our
RTF
documents,
as
approved
by
the
RRS
IRS
G,
the
IAB
documents,
as
approved
by
the
IAB,
and
the
independent
documents,
as
approved
by
the
intimate
independent
submission
editor.
AK
The
independent
submission
editor
is
a
part
of
the
RFC
model
that
we
are
discussing,
but
I'm
going
to
shift
that
apart.
This
is
all
input.
This
is
not
part
of
the
errors,
yet
the
RC
editor
simply
or
simply,
they
sort
of
designed
this
like
this
and
I
realize
I'm
talking
about
boxes
and
about
and
and
and
these
boxes
of
course,
there
are
people
behind
this.
AK
So,
apologies
by
putting
it
here
like
this.
First,
your
internet
drafts
get
into
the
system
and
there
are
copy
edited
by
the
RFC
production
center,
the
RC
production
center
producing
RC
and
gives
that
RFC
to
another
entity,
which
is
the
RFC
publisher
and
they
publish
the
RFC
and
archive
it.
Those
two
functions
are
currently
operated
by
one
contractor,
which
is
AMS,
and
you
all
know
sandy
and
Alice.
They
are
the
people
who,
for
instance,
work
in
the
RFC
production
center.
AK
AK
AK
Representation
of
the
RC
series
towards
the
ITF
and
others,
including
the
development
of
our
simulated
policy.
In
the
wider
context,
this
is
what
have
there
has
been
doing,
and
the
report
that
you
just
saw
was
an
aspect
of
that
development
of
RC
production
and
publication.
So
how
do
we
evolve?
How
we
produce
our
FCS
and
how
do
we
publish
them?
AK
The
errata,
for
instance,
is
an
example
of
that
and
the
development
of
the
RFC
series
itself
discussions
about
streams,
new
types
of
content
coming
in
many
of
these
functions
are
ultimately
overseen
on
behalf
of
the
wider
community
by
the
IAB.
The
IAB
has
a
charge
of
responsibility
in
oversight
of
the
RFC
series,
and
the
way
that
that
is
implemented
is
that
the
RFC
has
created
a
DB.
The
the
IAB
has
delegated
a
lot
of
the
responsibility
to
the
RFC
series.
Oversight
Committee.
AK
This
is
sort
of
how
the
oversight
and
responsibilities
are
working.
So
at
a
bottom
you
have
the
two
should
publish
the
production,
the
publication
function,
the
contracts
maintained,
the
contractor
is
AMS,
and
contracts
in
this
diagram
are
all
with
the
LLC.
That
was,
of
course,
the
IOC.
When
this
RC
was
written,
so
that's
the
orange
lines
or
the
lines
that
come
from
the
right,
I'm,
not
quite
sure
if
orange
and
green
is
seen
by
everybody
I
just
realize
those
are
the
lines
coming
down
from
the
right.
Those
are
contractual
relationships.
Those
are
budget
oversight,
matters.
AK
Rfc
4844
speaks
about
administration,
on
oversight
by
the
RUC
and
policy
oversight
by
the
IAB,
and
so
the
strategy
and
substance
is
overseen
by
the
IAB,
but
that
is
all
in
conversation
of
courses
developed
in
conversation
with
the
community
at
large,
and
there
is
a
book
in
this
slide.
The
community-at-large
arrows
go
one
way.
Of
course
they
should
go
two
ways.
There
is
interaction
that
is
supposed
to
be
a
conversation.
AK
Was
in
my
speaking
notes
and
I
was
about
to
say
the
astute
observer
would
say
there
is
no
our
C
Series
advisory
group.
That's
simply
because
the
the
the
model
doesn't
prescribe
that
group.
It
is
an
advisory
group
that
is
acting
on
behalf
of
the
RFC
series
editor
to
be
asked
off.
What
is
the
right
wording
here?
So
if
you
hear
about
the
R
Seck
the
RFC
series
advisory
group,
that
would
be
a
box
that
is
hanging
of
the
RFC
series
editor
but
really
informs
that
function.
AK
H
AJ
I
thank
all
off
for
this.
There
are
some
places
in
the
model
and
that
I
might
argue
with
him
a
bit.
I
actually
think
the
RFC
editor
is
a
role
not
just
a
function.
I
actually
think
the
series
in
itself
is
a
box
along
with
the
IAB
and
the
isg
I
think
it
predates
the
idea.
So
for
me,
stewardship
of
the
the
RFC
series
and
protection
of
the
independence
and
the
integrity
of
the
RFC
editor
as
a
role
are
extremely
important.
So
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
for
you,
Ted
speaking
for
the
IAB.
AJ
H
I
certainly
agree
with
you.
The
RFC
editor
is
itself
a
role,
but
it's
also
a
role
that
has
been
shared
among
multiple
other
roles
in
this
current
model.
Now
you
asked
me
what
I
thought
the
role
of
the
RSC
editor
is
and,
and
they
the
way
I
look
at
it.
From
a
metaphor,
perspective
is
sort
of
like
a
town
planner.
If
you
think
about
what
we
do,
we're
the
construction
workers.
We
build
the
houses
what
the
RFC
production
center
does.
H
Is
they
come
through
and
make
sure
that
everything
in
the
houses
is
up
to
code
and,
if
necessary,
they
help
us
bring
it
up
to
code
if
it
isn't,
the
role
the
RSC
plays
is
more
like
a
town
planner.
She
doesn't
get
into
the
details
of
whether
any
particular
document
is
up
to
code
helps
make
sure
that
the
codes
are
modern
and
she
helps
make
sure
that
the
outputs
from
the
city
are
well
under
well
connected
to
the
rest
of
the
world
that
the
roads
coming
in
and
out
of
the
city.
H
In
this
case
the
publication
venues
in
which
the
RFC
editor
sorry,
the
RFC
publications,
are
understood
that
all
of
those
work
well.
So,
from
our
perspective,
it's
a
very,
very
important
role
and
it's
at
a
level
that
most
of
us
don't
operate
on
the
day
to
day
basis.
We're
mostly
the
construction
workers,
were
writing
a
draft
or
mostly
building
the
houses
and
interacting
on
a
day
to
day
basis
for
the
code
inspectors.
H
So
as
stewards
of
that
function-
and
you
know
as
Brian
carpenter
is
put
this-
the
kind
of
stewardship
that's
involved
in
that
has
gone
through
multiple
steps.
The
main
thing
to
that
we
have
to
do
as
stores
is
to
make
sure
it
keeps
going
we're
not
experts
in
town
planning,
we're
not
experts
in
publication.
Our
job
is
to
make
sure
that
with
the
community
and
with
the
our
sock
that
the
function
keeps
going
so
that
the
individually
built
houses
each
draft
remains
part
of
a
functioning
whole.
The
city
or
the
series
does
that
make
sense.
AJ
H
And
I
appreciate
that
I
will
say
that
it's
never
a
good
idea
to
let
the
people
who
are
building
the
houses
to
write
the
code,
there's
always
a
risk
there.
You
do
want
independence
and
I
recognize
that
so
I
think
that
the
order
was
actually
John
was
next
and
then
up
to
the
front
microphone
John
nope,
the
police
way.
We.
AM
Ted
I
want
to
start
with
a
brief
observation
about
all's
presentation,
which
is
that
when
the
are
socks
started
and
I
was
very
much
part
of
it
at
the
beginning,
it
saw
its
role
as
assisting
and
aiding
the
RSC
to
perform
well
and
make
and
make
certain
of
overall
function
works
and
at
some
stage
that
seems
to
have
shifted
into
what's
now,
seeing
it
as
a
oversight
in
the
management,
sense
role
and
I.
Don't
know
what
started
that
shift
or
how
we
got
there.
AM
H
Thank
you,
so
the
RFC
66
35
doesn't
actually
tell
the
IAB
on
what
schedule
to
repopulated
or
how
to
do
it,
and
so
the
IAB
has
done
it
on
a
periodic
basis.
Essentially
in
the
past
four
or
five
years,
every
two
years
and
looked
for
new
volunteers
or
looked
to
refresh
the
program.
The
last
time
through,
we
did
a
standard
program
refresh,
which
means
that
we
called
call
for
volunteers
for
the
whole
program
got
many
volunteers.
H
That
makes
sure
that
we
never
refresh
all
of
the
our
suck
again
at
any
one
time
and
I
think
that
that
is
sort
of
a
structural
change.
That
will
help
make
sure
that
the
lessons
we
learn
from
this
aren't
as
easy
to
lose,
because
I
do
think
you're
right.
One
of
the
things
that
happened
here
was
the
standard
meaning
of
oversight
more
and
more
came
into
play
in
the
understanding
of
what
the
the
our
Sauk
was
meant
to
be
doing
and
I.
H
Obviously
this
whole
process
has
been
a
forceful
reminder
that
the
community
has
a
different
expectation
here.
How
we
make
sure
that
this
becomes
reflected
in
the
documents
in
a
way
that
it's
part
of
the
structure,
because
it's
it's
pretty
obvious.
We
had
people
with
five
three
two
years
of
experience
on
on
the
air
sock,
but
the
lure
didn't
get
carried
forward
in
the
program
enough
I
think
it
has
to
be
in
the
documents
in
selves
and
I.
AM
In
addition
to
that,
and
I
will
make
this
very
brief
hot.
There
was
a
shift
from
expecting
there
to
be
serious
publication
strategy.
Experts
ease
on
the
are
sock
that
got
lost
somewhere
in
the
process,
and
that
also
may
be
a
matter
of
not
having
written
things
down
enough.
It
may
be
a
matter
of
not
enough
institutional
memory
on
the
IAB,
but
to
the
extent
to
which
one
wants
that
historical
quote
oversight
and
quote
role
that
has
to
be
expertise
there,
which
is
above
and
beyond.
V
So
my
questions
for
a
Ted
and
Alyssa
and
I'm
gonna
ask
this
multi-part
question
retrospectively,
but
it's
more
with
an
eye
towards
how
do
we
bake
this
into
the
process
going
forward
and
make
sure
that
it's
considered
too,
because
I
think
it
will
make
a
difference?
So
was
risk
management
considered
in
the
decision
process
and
by
that
I
mean
or
the
potential
outcomes
enumerated
with
the
possible
outcomes
and
I'm
sorry,
possible
outcomes
and
potential
business
impact
and
remediation
options
as
to
inform
a
business
decision
and
I.
V
Ask
this
as
I've
been
C
so
multiple
times
right,
so
I've
had
to
go
through
this
type
of
process
at
every
time.
Some
some
sort
of
large
security
decision
was
made
and
another
part
of
that
was
the
LLC
consulted,
since
they
own
the
contract
or
the
trust
which
Amon
so
I
know
we
weren't,
but
we
own
the
published
RFC's.
So.
V
Okay,
so
I
think
having
risk
management
started
at
that.
Early
phase
could
have
helped,
but
I
am
asking
that
to
Ted
and
Alissa,
not
to
the
our
sock,
because
I
view
this
as
really
a
level
above
that,
in
terms
of
where
we're.
Where
are
we
placing
risk
management
functions
and
having
the
process
that
goes
up
through
the
business
to
people
who
are
responsible
right
to
make
those
business
decisions.
H
Thank
you
for
the
comment.
I
think
I
might
need
to
follow
up
with
you
a
little
bit
more
offline
about
exactly
how
your
modeling
risk
management,
because
I
think
what
you
mean
by
it
might
not
be
quite
what
I
understand
it.
But
given
the
mic
lines,
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
like
to
take
the
further
detail.
V
V
A
I
mean
happy
to
have
more
follow-up
on
this,
but
the
one
thing
I
would
say
at
least
my
understanding
of
RFC
66
35
is
like
a
very
strong
presumption
of
delegation
to
the
our
sack
for
all
of
these
matters
and
I
think
that
was
by
design
like.
Why
would
you
have
two
committees
overseeing
you
know
having
any
oversight
role
over
a
single
individual
if
they
weren't
supposed
to
have
functionally
different
roles?
AL
So
no
you're!
Next.
Thank
you
very
much.
This
question
is
for
Lissa.
As
you
go
forward,
you've
asked
us
to
think
about
going
forward.
I
I'd
like
to
see
what
your
arc
isn't
going
forward.
Alyssa
we
had
a
and
I
knew
in
a
unique
position
since
you
sit
both
on
the
IC
and
IB
and
I'm
sure
Ted
I'd
love
to
hear
this
from
you,
but
we
had
an
RF
C++
buff
to
work
on
our
main
output,
which
is
RFC's.
What
was
your
conclusion
from
that
bath,
and
how
did
you
come
to
it?
A
Sure
I
mean
I
think
it
was.
It
was
a
bit
more
of
an
IB
initiative
than
anything
else,
but
I
think
I
think
it
was
very
clear
feedback
from
the
boss
that
the
topics
that
were
raised
were
squarely
in
the
province
of
the
RFC
series
editor
and
she
agreed
to
take
them
on
and
work
on
them
and
I.
Think
that
was
I
mean
in
the
realm
of
you
know,
clarity
of
result
from
above
it's
one
of
the
clearest
results
I've
seen
so
that
was
good
outcome.
A
AL
AL
A
AJ
A
I,
don't
think
the
odd
48
topic
was
related
to
the
Boff,
but
I
will
say
that,
as
far
back
as
your
and
a
half
ago,
Heather
and
I
were
talking
about
the
the
RPC
performance
evaluation,
and
this
was
the
main
topic
that
that
came
up,
that
it
would
be
great
to
get
going
on
revisions.
Tara,
all
48
and
you
know,
I-
knew
that
it
was
sort
of
as
the
next
project
after
the
the
format
transition.
So
from
my
personal
individual
perspective,
I
think
that's.
A
A
AL
AN
Not
sure
is
next,
maybe
it's
me
all
right,
hey
if
you
want
something
or
somebody
else
know
it's.
You
I'll
go
so
earlier
today,
Sarah
sent
out
an
email
to
the
ITF
list,
with
an
apology
from
the
or
sake
and
I
just
want
to
say
to
you
that
I
think
that
was
a
standard
thing
to
do
and
thank
you
for
it.
I
think
it
sets
a
very
good
example.
AN
There
was
a
couple
of
things
in
that
email
that
caught
my
eye,
and
one
of
them
was
talk
about
how
the
current
situation
came
to
be
as
a
result
of
wanting
to
test
out
an
RFC
process,
because
there
was
some
uncertainty
around
sort
of
the
earlier
application
of
it
and
as
somebody
who's,
so
does
this
for
a
living
managing
of
peace
as
a
large
part
of
my
day
job.
You
know
there
is
no
such
thing
as
to
test
the
north
RFP
process.
AN
You
will
run
it
or
you
don't
and
in
the
kind
of
contracts
that
the
various
parts
of
the
organization
manages
all
none
of
them
as
far
as
I
can
see
or
for
no
square
meter
of
something
a
standard
service.
It's
all
special-purpose,
it's
all.
You
know
one
offs
in
various
forms
and
shapes,
and
you
have
to
be
very
much
more
careful
when
you
managed
and
by
those
kinds
of
services.
So
what
I'm
here
to
ask
is:
are
there
anything?
Is
there
anything
else
on
the
table?
AN
AN
Not
all
of
them
are
reimbursed
directly
or
contracted,
but
a
lot
of
them
are
affected
by
contracts
that
the
current
ITF
leadership
is
negotiating
in
various
sort
of
concentrations.
I
also
will
make
sure
that
we
learn
from
this,
not
only
in
the
RFC
future
RFC
process
or
the
future
hiring
of
this
particular
function,
but
in
other
parts
of
the
organization.
So
we
don't
break
anything
else.
Thank.
H
You
for
your
comment
and
I
think
the
good
news
is
that
none
of
the
other
contracts
are
held
in
quite
this
way.
Where
there's
this
recommendation
appointment
and
then
referral
to
the
to
the
LLC
I
think
there
are
mostly
a
good
bit
simpler
than
this,
but
I'm
sure
that
the
LSE
board
members
here
who
who
are
listening
are
listening
to
the
point
you've
made
and
we'll
try
and
avoid
making
this
right.
Because.
AN
There
were
a
couple
of
Sarah
actually
had
a
couple
of
points
in
her
email.
One
of
them
was,
you
know
we
we're
looking
at
a
an
RFC
where
we
don't
understand.
What's
going
on,
we
need
to
test
it
and
P
and
that's
a
Freudian
slip,
we're
looking
at
an
RFC.
We
don't
know
why.
We
then
go
as
to
expect
that
last
time
we're
gonna
test
it
I
think
that's
your
number
one
mistake
right.
AN
AN
AO
AO
To
get
a
little
bit
closer
I've
been
trying,
okay,
that
close
I've
been
trying
to
get
a
Mike
st.
John's
I've
been
trying
to
get
an
idea.
The
timeline
here
and
we've
been
working
our
way
back
through
all
this
stuff.
Could
the
IAB
members
of
the
are
sock
identifying
themselves?
Please:
okay,
cool,
so
I
went
back
and
to
look
at
the
IRA,
see
our
sock
maintenance
and
there
were
only
two
discussions
on
this
particular
topic.
AO
One
of
them
was
that,
because
the
I
sock,
HR
person
back
in
2005,
had
said
you
may
not
evaluate
the
contractor,
you
would
come
up
with
a
you,
must
develop
you're,
going
to
evaluate
the
contract
but
someplace
in
the
middle
of
this
you
basically
went
off
and
and
and
decided
that
the
evaluation,
the
contract
was
also
to
do
a
rebid.
So
who,
in
this
process,
was
the
prime
mover
for
the
rebid
and
what
discussions
were
done
besides?
It
looks
like
the
last
me.
Maybe
two
meetings
prior
and
that
topic
was
just
the
evaluation
criteria.
H
Let
me
let
me
caution
you
about
something
related
to
the
executive
session.
In
addition,
of
course,
to
the
executive
session
there,
it's
an
executive
equivalent
mailing
list,
so
you're,
probably
not
seeing
the
full
record
because
some
of
it
may
have
been
since
it
is
a
personnel
or
a
contract
matter
on
on
this.
So
please
understand
that,
because
we
have
to
treat
these
as
confidential,
even
when
the
intent
is
to
be
laudatory
toward
the
person.
Some
of
this
is
not
in
the
public
record
and
can't
be
put
there
now
going
back
to
the
timeline
question
Christian.
AO
AB
AO
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
much
thought
went
into
this
process
of
deciding
to
do
this
and
I'm
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
it
we
we
don't
end
up
with
a
oh.
Let's
just
do
the
RFP
without
you
know,
just
somebody
randomly
deciding
to
do
this
so
I
need
to
understand.
Was
there
any
discussion
of
this
and
the
impact
of
the
rebid
and
I'm
not
seeing
that
and
they're
in
the
record?
So.
H
H
H
Addition
to
that
recommendation
for
renewal,
they
brought
back
up
an
issue
that
had
occurred
in
including
in
discussions
from
Heather
that
the
last
time
that
they
had
sought
candidates,
they'd
received
only
one
and
at
the
same
time,
decided
to
make
a
a
concerted
effort
over
the
following
two
years
to
figure
out
what
had
happened
and
see
if
they
could
issue
another
RFP.
Now,
we've
we've
noted
in
the
previous
things
here.
That
was
certainly
a
mistake
in
communication
in
communicating
those
at
the
same
time
because
completely
misunderstood
as
something
that
was
reflective
of
Heather's
performance.
H
Despite
it
having
caveats
about
that
in
it,
that's
that's
a
mistake
and
it
was
I
think
sarah
has
been
very
clear
about
that.
It
was
also
something
where
I
think
in
response
to
leave.
We,
we
certainly
agreed
that.
That's
not
how
this
should
have
gone,
that
instead
we
understand
that
what
we
should
have
done
here-
and
this
is
a
broad-
we
is
make
sure
that
everybody
was
on
board
with
that
process,
including
Heather,
before
making
the
decision
to
do
the
reason.
H
Including
the
community
as
well,
but
at
that
point
in
the
process,
the
only
part
that
had
happened
was
the
our
stock
recommendation
and
then
the
RSC's
resignation.
So
some
bits
of
this
that
might
have
corrected
this
and
it
would
be
kind
of
fanciful
to
assume
that
we
actually
got
this
right
didn't
happen
and
that's
where
it
went
wrong
and.
AO
H
The
information
came
to
the
IAB
I
mean
pretty
much
at
exactly
the
same
time
that
she
told
the
LLC
board.
Sarah
did
reach
out
to
her
right
away.
I
sent
her
an
email
personally
but
list
saying
thank
you
for
your
service
and
intended
to
reach
out
to
her
after
I
got
back
from
the
dead
or
workshop
to
discuss
further,
but
because
it
was
a
you
know,
literally
in
Helsinki,
on
a
plane
getting
on
a
plane.
AP
Three
comments:
first,
thanks
to
Olaf
for
his
slides,
they
make
a
very
complicated
process,
look
really
easy
and
it
looks
like
a
process
that
should
run.
The
second
is
I,
don't
think
we're
quite
ready
to
put
out
an
RFP
yet
and
the
reason
why
this
process
looks
like
it
should
run.
Well,
it
didn't
it
failed
in
a
spectacular
way.
AP
The
people
standing
around
the
microphone
are
trying
to
debug
the
process.
Now
what
happened?
What
went
wrong?
Probably
the
people
who
can
debug
the
process
best
are
the
ones
who
executed
it.
They
should
probably
do
a
post-mortem
figure
out.
What
went
wrong?
Who
made
the
mistakes
be
honest
about
it?
We
learn
from
our
mistakes.
The
next
thing
is,
and
we
undo
the
damage.
Is
it
possible?
H
AQ
AQ
Does
the
operational
course
that
have
largely
been
moved
out
and
I
think
you
know
the
RFC's
will
continue
to
flow.
Should
this
position
be
vacant,
for
you
know
a
period
a
short
period
of
time.
While
we
deal
with
the
harder
strategic
questions
and
then
once
you,
if
you
manage
to
separate
those
roles,
you
can
ask
the
question
and
I've
heard
wildly
divergent
opinions
on
how
you
structure,
someone
that
is
only
dealing
with
strategic
questions
there
right
have.
AQ
We
now
created
a
leadership
position
that
looks
a
lot
like
the
other
leadership
positions
we
have,
and
so
this
shouldn't
be,
you
know
a
hired
or
a
contracted
position.
There
should
be
an
appointed
position,
you
know
and
then
you
would
have
more
of
a
peer
kind
of
relationship
and
as
soon
as
you
create
that
other
model,
you
necessarily
bring
management
into
that,
and
is
that
attention?
That's
not
survivable?
Can
you
carve
off
enough
of
that?
So
that's
leadership,
more
consistent
with
the
model
we
already
do.
AQ
P
So
regrettably,
I
was
standing
at
the
mic.
The
last
time
we
were
here
in
this
hotel
talking
about
what
happened
at
the
at
the
RFC
plus
Bob,
and
it's
only
gotten
worse.
I
mean
this.
Is
this
mean
you're,
the
management
of
this
oversight,
and
this
has
been
a
giant
failure.
I,
you
know,
Oh
of
all
his
presentation
was
quite
good,
and
you
know
he
said
something
very
important.
He
said
the
are
sock
was
supposed
to
be
the
people
with
the
long
term
history
in
this,
so
things
didn't
change
very
quickly.
I
mean
that's.
P
That
was
the
intent
and
setting
this
up,
and
when
you,
when
the
IAB
decided
to
cycle
a
whole
bunch
of
people
in
the
are
sock,
you
lost
all
of
that
and
that's
I
think
what
led
to
the
events
that
caused
us
to
lose
a
really
good
person
who
you
know
to
lose
Heather
you.
It
was
a
series
of
errors
that
you
know
come
back
to
a
bunch
of
things.
P
The
IB
did
so
where
I'm
going
with
this
is
I,
have
no
confidence
that
the
current
our
sock
and
the
current
IB
are
going
to
bring
us
run.
The
process
to
get
us
the
next
RFC
editor
in
the
way
we
want
I
think
there's
gonna
have
to
be
some
significant
changes
in
this
to
get
the
right
set
of
people
involved
in
this.
So
we
get
a
good
outcome.
H
The
idea
is
that,
by
creating
the
structured
program
that
lasts
longer
than
any
IAB
two-year
term
that
the
there
are
always
enough
people
in
it
who
have
been
in
it
long
enough
that
the
the
structures
of
the
program
keep
things
going.
In
this
case,
the
IB
did
to
a
refresh
that
called
for
new
people,
but
it
actually
kept
three
people
with
a
total
of
eleven
years
of
experience
in
the
our
sock.
H
So
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
they
weren't
either
going
and
using
this
in
a
way
where
we
were
not
going
and
using
this
in
a
way,
that's
different
from
the
other
IAB
structures,
or
that
the
the
people
who
stayed
in
the
our
sock
hadn't
been
there.
Some
significant
period
of
time,
what
I
do
think
is
a
very
important
strategic
question
and
I
certainly
agree
with
you
that
we
should
deal
with
is
whether
this
is
still
the
right
structure.
H
It
may
very
well
be
that
having
an
R
sock
that
is
directly
appointed
by
the
NomCom
or
from
some
other
mechanism,
that's
tied
to
the
the
stream
managers
or
some
other
thing
may
be
a
better
solution
now.
I
think
the
most
important
thing
that
we
can
do
from
this
point,
though,
is
to
figure
out
how
we
get
to
that
strategy,
and
if
it
is
not
run
the
the
RFP
process
and
hire
somebody
to
help
us,
then
we
have
to
understand.
H
Z
Z
Few
notes
so
I
was
interested
to
hear
the
discussion
of
what
people's
conceptions
of
sixty
sixty
five
arms
intention
for
the
are
sock
war.
I
went
back
and
reviewed
the
material
as
I
assume
that
the
documents
actually
document
what
they're
supposed
to
document
so
I
mean
this
seems
like
a
pretty
classic
oversight.
Z
That's
what
I
suspect
our
sock
to
do
so,
and
I
certainly
think
the
IB
she
responsible
community
for
their
ultimate
decisions,
but
I
certainly
would
not
be
happy.
If
what
that
you
know
the
output
of
this
was
that
the
our
stock
in
the
IB
every
time
they
made
a
decision
had
to
like
about
of
the
community
or
validation
of
every
individual
decision.
That
seems
non-functional
on
the
structure
we
have
in
this
community.
Is
we
trust
the
leadership
to
do
things
and
we
don't
when
they
don't
do
them?
Z
S
P
Z
Second
thing,
I
want
to
say,
is
I
want
to
district.
Thank
you
for
you
to
say
that
earlier
about
the
sort
of
the
structures
that
we
use
for
continuity,
it's
really
not
a
viable
system
to
assume
that
continuity
has
to
reside
in
like
a
few
individuals
who
then
carry
on
forever.
Elliott
doesn't
work
and
I'm
me.
This
was
taken
the
ITF
over
and
over
again.
Z
We
like
think
that,
like
weights
of
it
exactly
right
person
in
and
like
and
like
the
way,
one
builds
like
a
viable
long-term
system
is
by
having
structures
not
by
having
the
great
man
or
great
woman
theory
of
history.
This
is
been
my
experience
and
the
companies
I've
worked
in
that
doesn't
really
survive
of
all
those
people
leave.
Z
Finally,
I
think
it
is
clear
from
this
interaction
that
the
structure
and
the
sort
of
grand
strategy
of
what
the
RFC
system,
then
those
boxes
on
the
screen,
perhaps-
and
maybe
some
rethink
I-
was
heartened
to
hear
Patrick
say
that
you
know
that
if
we
don't
solve
this
problem
right
away,
the
aura
seas
will
continue
to
flow
and
I
grew.
That
I
mean
that's
what
we're
here.
So
long
the
RO
seas
must
flow,
so
yeah
I
thought
you'd
like
that,
so
so
I
think.
Certainly
that
gives
us
some
time.
Z
It's
not
like
an
emergency.
The
so
I
think
you
know
we
have
a
broad
scale.
We
have
sort
of
two
options.
One
I
think
the
one
that
Ron
just
indicated,
which
is
take
a
pause
and
don't
appoint
anybody
new
for
a
little
while
and
sort
of
try
to
sort
out
and
community
with
the
RFC,
whether
it's
our
Shore
to
be,
and
the
second
is
on
you
know-
to
appoint
somebody
for
a
shorter
term.
Z
Perhaps
you
can
help
us
sort
out
what
that
ought
to
be
when
the
RC
processes
indicated
6055
to
pick
that
person,
but
with
the
expectation
that
we're
gonna
sort
things
out
rather
than
that,
like
that
they're
fitting
into
some
long-term
final
structure,
I
think
either
those
would
be
viable
but
I
think
clearly
whatever
it
is
like
we
do.
You
know,
ask
the
question:
is
this
the
right
strategy
and
truckster
going
forward?
Thank
you.
Thank.
E
So,
with
regards
to
RFC's
flowing
absolutely
a
priority
there,
we'll
so
yes,
I
have
a
very
tactical
role,
and
the
RSC
else
is
a
very
strategic
role.
The
tactical
role
is
an
immediate
need
that
you
need
to
consider.
We
we've
been
talking
about
the
format,
change,
there's
going
to
be
day-to-day
questions
about
how
do
we
handle
different
things
that
will
need
to
be
answered,
ongoing
and
fairly
quickly,
we've
already
added
a
new
state
in
the
database
so
that
we
can
track.
You
know
as
we
track
at
at
time.
We
tracked
RFC
editor
time.
E
We
tracked
off
48
time
and
now
we're
gonna
track
tools,
time
where
something
is
stuck
in
a
state
where
the
tools
aren't
quite
right
that
they
need
to
change
regardless
of
the
long
term
direction
that
the
organization
takes
and
I
do
suspect.
You
need
to
spend
some
quality
time
with
that
someone
needs
to
be
able
to
help
the
RSC
production
center
with
those
day-to-day.
What
about
this
field?
So
please
keep
that
in
mind.
So.
E
No
I
think
having
trying
to
find
per
telling
the
tools
team,
perhaps
to
to
take
this
part
and
run
it
I
think
trying
to
find
an
interim
person
is
going
to
be
wildly
difficult
for
anyone
you
bring
in
for
them
to
be
able
to
do
that
job.
We
run
an
XML
vocabulary.
That's
like
nothing
else
in
the
world,
so
I
don't
see,
you'll,
be
able
to
find
an
expertise
to
do
this
role.
I
think
you'll
need
to
get
it
from
within
the
community
and
then
spend
some
time
with
the
bigger
picture.
AR
See
thank
you
for
the
clarification,
I
think
Richard.
You
were
next
hi.
This
is
Richard
Barnes
I'm.
Sorry
I'd
like
to
sound
a
bit
of
a
note
of
positivity
and
thank
the
IAB
in
the
are
sock
for
the
oversight
they've
been
doing
to
me.
Oversight
is
about
back.
You
know,
when
you're,
in
oversight
of
a
role,
it's
about
backstopping,
that
role
and
paying
attention
to
when
there
might
be
question
marks
or
things
signs
that
things
might
need
attention
and
I.
AR
Think
that's
what
I've
seen
out
of
the
IAB
on
our
side
because
is
fulfilling
that
role.
But
thinking
back
the
last
few
times,
I've
been
at
this
plenary
mic,
including
perhaps
like
right
on
this
spot,
have
been
expressing
concerns
about
you
know
ways
the
RFC
series
needs
to
evolve,
whether
that's
in
terms
of
SLA
viola
violations
or
speed
of
processing
or
in
terms
of
reaching
out
to
stakeholder
communities.
AR
The
consumers
of
rfcs
so
like
I,
think
there
there
have
been
question
marks
that
come
through
and
I
think
it's
it's
the
duty
of
the
oversight
bodies
to
be
looking
into
those
and
taking
a
look,
and
so
I
like
to
thank
the
artists
on
the
IAB
for
doing
that
and
invite
them
to
continue
fulfilling
the
role
that
they've
been
charted
within
the
relevant
rfcs.
And
so
in
that
regard,
I
kind
of
disagree.
AR
AR
There's
some
operational
issues
that
need
attending
to
I
think
it
would
also
be
useful
to
have
someone
in
that
role
to
kind
of
guide
the
community
concession
and
be
kind
of
a
focus
point
for
for
this
conversation,
as
we
discuss
the
going
forward,
so
yeah
I
think
I
again
I'd
like
to
thank
the
IAB
in
the
arishok
and
I
think
you
know
either
these
two
options
is
acceptable,
but
I
have
a
slight
preference
for
going
ahead
and
putting
a
candidate
in
the
spot.
Okay,
thanks.
U
H
U
My
second
to
turn
the
volume
up
so
I
think
there's
been
a
failure
here.
I
disagree
with
rich
first,
let
me
apologize
to
you
publicly
Ted.
If
you
felt
that
I
was
harassing
you
on
the
ITF
list,
I
got
some
feedback
that
maybe
I
wasn't
clear
with
what
I
was
trying
to
get
to
and
I
was
trying
really
hard
to
not
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
I
did
I
was
asking,
you
know,
did
the
ID
think
anything
went
wrong?
U
Was
there
anything
that
could
have
done
differently
and
I
think
that
there
were
things
that
the
IB
did
wrong
and
could
have
done
differently,
but
first
the
response
was:
there
was
nothing
wrong.
The
I
agree,
I
be
was
regretful.
Then
you
said
that
you
thought
the
mistake
was
that
you
hadn't
realized
that
heather
was
unhappy
this
evening
in
this
discussion
you
said:
well,
maybe
the
IB
made
a
mistake
because
they
made
the
change
to
the
our
sock,
Constitution
or
membership.
I
think
those
were
in
fact
mistakes
and
I
was
but
I.
U
You
know
I,
don't
think
your
or
the
Ivy
is
arguing
and
bad
faith
about
the
sense
of
the
stewardship
role
for
the
RFC
series.
I've
been
on
the
IAB
and
an
ex-officio
capacity
in
the
past
and
I've
always
had
that
sense
that
the
IB
felt
like
the
RFC
series,
was
part
of
the
things
that
it
was
responsible
for.
U
However,
I,
don't
really
sense,
I
don't
see
that
the
ideas
really
acted
like
it
was
responsible
for
the
RC
series
right,
an
interruption
in
the
RC
series
or
a
major
disruption,
the
RC
series
you're
responsible
for
that
right,
you're
responsible
for
the
RC
series
and
now
it's
being
disrupted,
it's
being
disrupted
because
the
she
has
told
us
that
she
had
the
impression
that
her
customer
wasn't
happy
with
her.
She
sent
that
and
I.
Maybe
you
can
confirm
this,
but
I
believe
that
she
sent
that
to
you
before
it
went
to
the
larger
community.
U
U
So
let
me
I
have
two
suggestions.
Positive
suggestions
to
move
forward,
I
think
that
the
our
Sauk
members
that
were
removed
from
the
our
Sauk
should
be
added
back
in.
They
bring
expertise.
History
for
searching
for
an
RSC
they've
done
this
before
and
I
think
that
the
our
sag
and
the
iscb
bring
a
lot
of
continuity
and
expertise
in
the
RFC
editors,
specifically
going
back
to
when
Bob
Braden
was
ours
together
and
I
think
you
should
take
advantage
of
them,
even
if
they
aren't
on
your
picture.
Thank
you.
AI
AI
We
are
publishing
technical
specifications,
and
this
to
me
looks
like
wily
as
as
a
as
a
sort
of
a
publisher
and
I
would
encourage
the
idea
to
look
into
simplifying
that
model,
because
I
think
part
of
the
problem
is
that
so
many
parties
involved
for
something
that
is
not
just
not
big
enough.
We
just
over
engineered
this
process.
F
AS
AS
It
I
think
it's
like
pretty
tight
to
talk
about
right
now,
I
like
to
say
like
okay,
we're
gonna
revisit
this
I
think
it's
gonna
be
a
like
difficult
call
to
make
specifically
like
relates
to
what
Aaron
said
act
for
the
disruption
of
the
RSC
series.
Pretty
much
so
I
think
we
should
at
least
for
this
like
cycle
continue
with
the
are
sock
like
doing
the
selection
and
the
IAB
like
approving
it.
Pretty
much
said
in
66,
35,
and
one
thing
I
want
to
say
is
like
with
our
C++
BA
I.
AS
Think
one
of
the
learnings
is
like
you
know.
We
need
to
come
in
connect
to
the
community
that
we
have
that's
like
consuming
this
stuff
and
and
a
lot
of
the
communities
here.
Okay,
like
the
IETF,
is
here
the
IRT
FS
year,
like
IAB,
is
here
obviously,
but
there's
also
like
other
people
outside
like
who
are
not
here
and
I.
Think
some
of
the
stuff
that
came
up
was,
like
you
know,
we're
not
listening
to
them.
AS
I
think
we
should
make
an
effort
to
reach
out
to
the
other
people
who
are
implementing
our
stuff
and
using
our
stuff
to
also
find
out
the
needs.
I
think
like
some
of
the
stuff
that
Heather
mentioned
right,
like
you,
know
the
in
liner.
That
kind
of
thing
like
those
are
like
really
something
that
we
need
and
I
think
taking
all
these
things
into
account
I
think
it's
like
a
really
good
idea.
AT
Jeffrey
you're
next
Jeffrey
askin
on
the
topic
of
leaving
the
series
editor
position
empty
for
a
period,
we're
we're
getting
the
new
RFC
format
soon.
It
sounds
like
it's
still
going
to
be
being
debugged
when
we
lose
Heather
at
the
end
of
the
year
and
leaving
leaving
nobody
in
charge.
While
that
that
new
format
is
still
being
debugged,
it
makes
me
nervous
now
Heather
and
the
and
the
other
editors
know
best
how
to
deal
with
that.
But
I
wanted
to
raise
that
as
as
I
worry.
H
AP
H
AP
Next,
so
when
I
first
heard
about
this
and
started
digging
into
it,
my
first
reaction
is
well
wow.
Something
must
have
gone
wrong
here.
I
want
to
figure
out
what
it
was
and
I
went
back,
trying
to
read
all
of
ITF
at
ITF
lists,
and
that
made
me
realize
that
we
actually
had
a
much
larger
problem
than
this
reading
that
list,
and
there
was
a
reason-
I
didn't
read
it,
but
after
I
worked
on
for
a
while
I
think
that
we've
heard
this
from
multiple
people.
AP
What
we
do
going
forward
is
is
by
far
more
important
here
and
I.
I
worry.
Sometimes
we
have
a
very
frustrating
experience
and
then
we
make
reactionary
adjustments
to
it.
You
know
I
caution
us
to
proceed
in
a
rational
way
that
thinks
about
this
stuff
and
sets
up
something
that
was
in
a
reaction
to
a
mistake
or
something
that
happened,
but
instead
is
a
better
way
of
doing.
This.
I
heard
suggestions
like
the
three-year
rotating
term
to
keep
continuity
and
those
types
of
things,
and
that
type
sounds
like
a
very
logical
type
of
thing.
AP
I
also
think
that
we
should
think
that
it's
very
normal
for
any
one
of
our
groups,
that
is,
is
responsible
for
contracts
that
are
one
of
our
most
expensive
budget
items
in
this
organization
of
producing
the
rfcs
that
that
we
would
eat
loop.
We
thought
that
the
contractor
didn't
was
doing
a
wonderful
job,
but
we
still
would
ask
about
other
prices
for
it
periodically
that
had
been
normal
oversight.
I
would
expect
from
any
business
group
spending
large
chunk
of
money
as
you
decay,
tional
each
X.
AP
The
best
things
you
could
so
I
think
that
that's
that's
pretty
normal
I
had
a
very
hard
time,
seeing
a
very
a
specific
problem
with
the
proce
with
the
the
structure
it
seems
like
our
structure
is
in
many
ways
similar
to
any
other
structure
we
didn't
bend,
but
I
do
think
we
have
to
give
more
guidance
on
what
we
want
out
of
it
and
sort
of
think
of
step
back
as
a
community
think
about
what
are
the
things
we
can
do
to
improve
that
and
then
and
then
make
those
happen
over
time.
Thanks.
H
Okay,
Henrik
you're
next
I
think
the
my
clients
have
not
drained
I'm,
not
going
to
try
and
cut
anybody
off,
but
at
some
point
we
may
need
to
move
everybody
to
the
front
of
the
room
so
that
they
can
start
resetting
the
back.
So
if
folks,
who
are
in
the
back,
if
you
could
consider
moving
front
to
allow
them
to
do
that,
that'd
be
good
Henrik
you!
You
can
start
the
thing
by
by
coming
to
the
front
Thanks.
W
Of
Corvettes,
so
yes,
I,
think
something
went
wrong.
I
think
we
need
to
look
again
at
the
setup
of
the
hora
sock
and
the
process,
but
I
have
one
particular
question
for
Ted.
I
may
be
wrong,
but
I
seem
to
recall
that
on
the
or
C++
of
the
two
two
new
IEP
members
on
the
our
sock
were
quite
vocal
in
proposing
quite
dramatic
changes.
W
H
I
I
think
that
we
we
sent
a
message
a
year
ago,
pretty
much
exactly
about
the
output
of
the
RF
C++
boffin
acknowledged
that
there
were
not
just
one
but
I,
think
I
count:
seven
mistakes
in
it,
among
them
some
of
the
early
consultation
issues,
and
it's
clear
that
there
was
an
eighth
mistake,
and
that
was
at
the
at
the
end
of
that.
We
were
very
clear
that
the
community
wanted
Heather
to
take
the
lead
in
the
further
evolution
discussions
that
not
us-
and
you
know
we
thought
that
that
was
done.
H
Apparently
it
it
continued
to
be
a
source
of
frustration
for
her
enough
that,
when
a
later
of
frustration
is
this
last
straw
on
the
camel's
back,
it
was
one
of
the
things
she
cited
in
her
message
to
the
community
as
one
of
the
issues
that
that
had
caused
her
to
decide.
It
was
better
for
her
to
go
away
that
we
were
no
longer
aligned.
We
didn't
think
that
it
was
any
more
a
question
of
alignment.
W
H
M
Okay,
thanks
Leslie
Daigle,
so
I
have
a
question
for
you:
either
you
Ted
or
are
you
representing
the
ivy
or
whatever
and
I,
want
to
give
my
answer
and
then
answer
your
question
about
filling
the
slot.
So
the
question
is
on
a
continuum
from
the
RFC
plus
bofto.
Now
I
think
we
can
agree.
We've
encountered
some
uncomfortable
situations
with
the
RFC
editor
and
the
RFC
series.
What
do
you
think's
good
looks
like.
M
H
So
I
don't
think
we
can
get
back
to
the
status
quo
ante,
given
what's
happened
so
far.
So
I
think
what
good
looks
like
starts
by
having
the
community
come
to
an
agreement
about
whether
they
wants
to
bring
in
a
Nora
C
to
help
the
future
discussion
now
or
as
close
to
now,
as
we
can
make
it
and
with
the
acknowledgement
that
John
had
brought
up
earlier
of
needing
to
stretch
beyond
the
increasingly
small
number
of
people.
H
That's
in
this
and
after
that,
to
finish
the
community
discussion
of
what
changes
need
to
happen
here
and
I.
Think,
given
some
of
the
issues
that
Bob
Hindon
raised,
those
changes
might
in
fact
mean
that
it's
no
longer
the
IEP,
which
appoints
the
our
sock
at
all,
that
its
role
changes
quite
significantly
as
a
result
of
this
I
actually
think
that
the
right
thing
to
happen
is
to
make
sure
that
the
community
believes
and
has
the
structures
in
place
to
make
sure
that
the
function
goes
forward
in
the
future.
H
M
Thank
you
because
I
think
that
was
definitely
responsive
to
my
question
and
my
answer
to
the
question
aligns
with
much
of
it.
If
not
all
my
answer
is
that
a
year
from
now,
I
would
like
the
IETF
and
the
internet
technical
community
as
a
whole,
which
are
impacted
by
this
situation,
to
have
confidence
that
we
are
all
on
the
same
page
about
what
the
RSC
is,
what
the
RSC
series
is
and
that
the
people
who
are
making
the
decisions
not
only
agree
with
what
that
is,
but
are
also
empowered
to
make
it
happen.
M
Technical
community
that
this
series
is
meant
to
serve
and
I'd
really
like
to
feel
more
confident
that
the
eye
he
remembers
that
as
we
go
forward
and
then,
finally,
to
your
question
of
whether
or
not
to
repopulated
attempt
to
repopulate
the
rse
position
at
this
time,
the
only
thing
I
would
say
is,
if
you
elect
not
to
do
that,
please
put
a
hard
time
limit
before
you
will,
because
if
we
just
say
when
we
have
consensus,
it
might
be
a
while.
That's.
N
H
AU
The
way
I
would
look
at
the
RFC
series.
Editor
position
would
be
potentially
more
akin
to
like
a
C
Series,
suite
type
role
and
the
our
Sauk
role,
I,
would
say
better
would
align
with
like
a
board
of
directors
and
board
of
directors
for
a
corporation
has
the
best
value
when
it
has
a
lot
of
stability
and
I.
AU
There's
no
reason
not
to
that
I
could
see,
and
I
would
say
that,
along
with
that,
as
much
as
the
RFC
series,
editor
is
a
paid
role.
I,
do
not
think
it
should
be
viewed
the
same
as
a
contractor.
It
should
be
viewed
as
a
limp
semi
limited
role,
with
the
expectation
of
as
long
as
it's
being
done.
Well,
the
it's
up
to
the
decision
of
the
our
sock
to
replace
or
not,
but
it
shouldn't
be
driven
by
a
particular
scheduling
or
duration
of
contracts.
AU
AA
Very
quickly,
I
I
think
that
we've
had
some
discussion
on
the
I
asset
to
list
and
during
the
discussion,
I
expressed
opposition
to
the
idea
of
the
Earth's
aura,
see
as
an
employee,
various
reasons
that
are
on
that
list,
so
I
think
there's
the
rest
of
your
comments.
I
tell
you
agreement,
but
that
part
don't
for
me.
AQ
Tigra
n--
meta
comments,
lost
concern,
I
think
I
see
a
there's
kind
of
watching
some
of
this
dialogue
and
watching
some
of
the
conversations
in
the
ITF
list
and
looking
at
it
as
a
observer.
I
see
some
of
it.
I
think
echo
alluded
to
this
in
one
of
his
comments
of
the
community
trying
to
do
an
incident
review
by
plenary
or
micromanaging
people.
We
put
it
in
a
leadership
role
by
plenary
or
trying
to
do
design
by
plenary,
and
it's
unclear
how
constructive
that
is.
AQ
AQ
Micromanaging
and
trying
to
second-guess
every
single
decision
they
are,
has
a
risk
of
creating
an
unhealthy
environment
in
an
environment
where
NomCom
was
asking
earlier,
like
hey,
we
have
trouble
getting
people
into
leadership
roles
the
we
should
be
asking
ourselves
if
people
who
are
in
those
leadership
roles
are
feeling
like
every.
If
they
make
a
mistake
and
then
say
sorry,
we
made
a
mistake
and
start
trying
to
say
in
good
faith,
look
at
what
they
did
to
make.
AQ
That
kind
of
made
that
mistake
and
try
to
figure
out
how
do
they
improve
that
going
forward
if
people
feel
like
even
that
they
do
that
the
entire
community
is
gonna,
be
constantly
second-guessing
them.
It's
gonna
be
hard
to
get.
People
are
gonna,
be
interested
in
going
into
leadership
roles
going
forwards,
so.
H
Just
to
quickly
respond
to
that
well,
I
certainly
hope
that
everybody
believes
we're
acting
in
good
faith
being
in
front
of
the
plenary
and
answering
questions.
The
community
and
listening
community
is
one
of
the
primary
accountability
mechanisms
that
has
been
built
into
the
ITF
and
I.
Think
that
probably
the
worst
possible
result
of
all
of
this
would
be
losing
it
so
I
think
as
much
as
this
is
a
difficult
way
of
getting
things
done.
We
we
need
to
listen
and
we
need
to
listen
in
public.
F
Hi
I'm
Adrian
Farrell
I'm,
the
independent
submissions
editor
some
quick
thanks
thanks
for
you,
staying
up
there,
facilitating
this
and
risking
your
blood
sugar
levels
thanks
to
Ola,
for
what
turns
out
to
be
really
helpful
slide
set
along
the
way.
Olaf
mentioned
the
four
streams
that
feed
the
RSC
series
and
I
think
Ted.
You
introduced
a
term
that
hadn't
come
up
from
our
life,
which
was
the
stream
managers.
So
that's
the
people
responsible
in
some
inverted
commas,
for
the
streams
I
wondered
along
the
way.
F
H
Think
that
this
is
one
of
the
structural
changes
we
may
have
to
make
that
the
way
that
the
system
is
currently
set
up,
the
our
Sauk
and
the
stream
managers
don't
actually
have
a
good
interface
other
than
just
talking
to
each
other
and
that
it
may
be
necessary
to
institute
a
much
more
structural
relationship.
If,
if
that's
what
we
want
to
see,
yes,.
F
AV
Bret
Jordan,
some
of
the
comments
tonight
have
referred
to
Heather
in
the
abstract
and
she's
a
person
and
I
think
we
need
to
realize
that
we
are
losing
Heather
and
I.
Think
that
we
should
it's
like
thank
her
for
her
sacrifice
and
her
service
and
more
care
and
feeding
of
your
employees
would
be
really
good
on
your
part.
Well,.
B
Is
that
negotiated,
oh
yeah?
That
was,
but
the
point
he's
made
is
something
that
I
would
also
like
to
touch
on.
In
heathers
note
and
in
the
discussion
here.
It's
clear
that
there
was
not
enough
open
communication
and
checking
in
on
her
and
on
the
concerns
that
had
been
raised
and
I
would
like
to
know
what
your
plans
are
for,
checking
in
on
all
of
the
other,
incredibly
critical
contractors
and
volunteers
and
making
sure
that
they
are
not
in
similar
states.
H
So
that
that's
a
really
good
question,
we
do
have
some
methods
of
working
with
AAA,
most
folks
in
less
than
formal
structures
and
I
think
those
are
avenues
where
we
could
might
potentially
learn
of
that.
But
it's
probably
something
that
we
need
to
work
with
the
LLC
board
on,
since
the
IEP
actually
doesn't
have
formal
relationships
with
many
of
those
other
contractors.
But
thanks
for
raising
the
issue
not.
B
H
AM
I've
also
been
here
before
this
will
be
very
brief,
but
I've
heard
something
a
couple
of
times
tonight
a
couple
of
times
as
a
list
which
needs
clarification.
If
I
decided
to
go
down
to
the
local
hardware
store
and
buy
a
kilogram
of
Tenpenny
Canadian
standard
nails
because
they
are
Canadian
standard.
There
is
a
Canadian
standard
for
ten
many
nails
at
a
Canadian
standard.
Four
kilogram
I
know
what
I'm
getting
and
if
I
decide
to
go
to
next
hardware
store
and
do
price
comparisons.
I
can
do
that
in
a
reliable
way.
AM
You
we
start
talking
about
bidding
these
contracts
on
a
competitive
price
basis.
We
are
in
deep,
deep
trouble
because
we
are
insulting
the
people
whom
we
would
most
want
to
do
the
jobs
and
we
are
going
to
get
ourselves
exactly
what
we
deserve.
So,
let's
be
very,
very
careful
about
a
vocabulary
which
starts
talking
about
recompete
anis
things
periodically
to
get
a
better
price.
AM
H
AR
AR
M
AR
H
H
Those
work,
hey
we're
we're
listening
at
this
point.
He
stated
his
opinion
we
can
move
on
henrik.
I
think
we
have
to
go
ahead
and
say
we're
done
taking
new
people
in
because
we're
now
seriously
over
time
like
over
an
hour
overtime,
so
I'm
gonna
drain
the
queue
on
this
side,
since
it
was
already
occupied,
Eliot
Thank.
O
You
Ted
Thank
You
ivy
for
staying
late
and
I'd
like
to
also
thank
colleagues
here,
I
think
generally,
that
we've
had
a
pretty
positive
discussion
here
and
I
think
we
should
all
recognize
that
I
understand.
I
I
can
see
that
there's
still
a
lot
of
passion
that
people
have,
and
there
are
ideas
that
they
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
express
one
of
the
things.
I
think
the
most
important
question
I
have
is:
where
do
we
go
from
here?
In
terms
of
how
do
you
want
to
structure
the
conversation
going
forward?
Ted,
okay,.
Z
Sarah
you're
gonna
have
the
I
will
be
incredibly
quick.
Two
points,
yes,
generally
in
our
technical
designs.
We
try
to
avoid
single
points
of
failure.
I
wouldn't
courage,
people
to
think
about
that
as
we
go
forward
in
terms
of
structure.
Second,
the
primary
purpose
is
fluid.
Hana
said
of
this
organization
is
to
publish
technical
specifications
and
whatever
we
structure
we
choose
has
to
serve
that.
Ultimately,
thank
you.
Thank
you
and
let.
H
Me
add
at
the
final
moment
to
thank
you
to
all
of
you
who
came
to
this
part
of
the
plenary
and
gave
your
thoughts
to
each
other
and
the
IAB
and
the
are
sock
on
this
set
of
points.
I
realize
it's
been
a
very
emotional
couple
of
weeks
for
many
and
I
also
appreciate
the
collegial
and
professional
manner
you
all
participated
in.
Thank
you
very
much.