►
From YouTube: IETF110-GENDISPATCH-20210309-1600
Description
GENDISPATCH meeting session at IETF110
2021/03/09 1600
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/proceedings/
A
A
B
A
A
A
D
D
So
if
you
don't
mind,
please
have
your
video
off
unless
you're,
presenting
or
speaking,
and
definitely
mute
your
microphone
unless
you're
speaking,
that
will
help
both
folks
who
are
listening
and
keep
your
bandwidth
pretty
low.
If
you
can
use
a
headset,
please
do
that
will
stop
echoes
from
happening.
D
The
blue
sheet
is
automatically
generated
from
the
list
of
folks.
So
there's
no
need
to
write
your
name
down
anywhere,
we'll
check
that
with
the
meat
echo
things
and
the
chat
that
is
taking
place
over
in
the
chat
room
on
meat,
echo
is
also
taking
place
on
jabber.
You
can
connect
to
both
and
get
to
the
same
place,
and
there
are
some
urls
which
you
can
find
to
get
information
on.
That.
D
If
you
would
download
from
the
agenda
page
you'll
find
most
of
these
links,
you'll
find
this
presentation.
It
will
have
all
of
these
links,
and
so,
if
you
need
to
get
to
any
of
these
places,
those
are
all
the
nice
urls
and
we'll
talk
about
the
incoming
and
outgoing
chairs
in
a
moment.
But
those
are
links
to
email
addresses
as
well.
D
So
remember
that
gen
dispatch
does
not
adopt
drafts
itself.
Unlike
other
dispatch
working
groups,
we
only
recommend
net
steps
for
new
work,
which
means
we're
either
going
to
recommend
directing
work
to
an
existing
working
group,
proposing
a
new
focused
working
group
proposing
that
an
ad
sponsor
document,
if
that
ad,
is
willing,
ask
for
additional
discussion
or
community
development,
if
that's
required
before
making
a
recommendation
or
saying
outright
that
we
don't
think
the
ietf
should
work
on
a
particular
topic.
D
D
So
we
will
see
your
name
if
we're
participating
in
meet
echo,
but
for
those
folks
who
are
only
doing
audio,
please
do
state
your
name
before
you
begin
speaking
again.
Keep
the
dispatch
question
in
mind.
That
is
the
key.
So,
if
you're
making
a
comment,
always
useful
to
end
that
comment
with
and
therefore
I
think
we
should
do
x
with
the
working
group
or
do
why,
with
the
document
or
whatever
it
is,
please
try
and
keep
your
comments
limited
so
that
everybody
gets
a
chance
to
speak
the
buttons
there.
D
If
you
want
to
join
the
queue,
just
push
the
little
hand
button
which
is
below
your
name
on
the
left
side
of
the
screen.
When
you
are
given
the
floor
by
the
chair,
please
unmute
your
audio
and
unmute
your
video.
If
you
want
to
show
your
smiling
face
so
that
you
can
send
that
we
don't
control
turning
the
video
on
and
off.
So
please
do
so
at
your
leisure
and
then
the
other
controls
that
little
chatty
button
is
the
jabber.
D
So
let's
do
a
little
agenda.
Bashing
we've
been
in
the
middle
of
the
intro
and
administrivia,
so
you
don't
get
to
change
that,
but
we
have
two
items
for
the
agenda.
John
clemson
is
going
to
do
a
quick
presentation
and
discussion
on
possible
futures
for
rfc
2028
and
then
fernando
and
keith
moore
are
going
to
do
a
presentation
on
general,
more
general
than
we've
been
talking
about
previously
diversity,
inclusiveness
in
the
ietf,
and
then
we've
got
plenty
of
time
to
either
extend
those
discussions.
D
C
Okay
in
in
the
process
of
working
on
something
else,
I
think
the
rfc
editor
issues
I
had
occasion
to
look
at
at
rfc
2028
for
the
first
time.
Next
slide,
please
in
in
many
years,
not
quite
since
october,
96
but
close.
This
is
a
20.
It's
a
quarter
century
old
document
which
has
substantively,
except
for
intellectual
property
rights
issues,
been
unchanged
in
the
last
quarter
century,
except
for
the
iatf
llc
terminology,
and
unsurprisingly,
many
things
have
changed
in
in
those
last
25
years.
C
C
C
The
document
is
a
particularly
interesting
comment
still
believes.
The
ietf
chair
is
appointed
by
the
iab,
which
would
make
this
working
group
a
rather
interesting
situation,
and
there
may
be
some
iedf
llc
loose
ends,
including
things
which
point
to
this
document
and
then
point
elsewhere
for
details
that
aren't
there.
C
That's
also
true
of
a
number
of
other
places
in
this
document,
where
it's
pointing
to
things
for
details
which
are
not
there,
along
with
documents,
along
with
pointing,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
documentaries,
don't
exist,
it
claims
the
secretariat,
not
the
llc
is
responsible
for
maintain
the
formal
public
record
of
of.
What's
going
on
that,
that
may
be
true
in
practice,
but
whether
given
the
llc's
organization,
that's
true
in
in
theory
is
an
open
question
and
again
those
are
just
examples.
C
The
document
is
relative
to
actual
contemporary
practice
contemporary
organizations
and
how
things
fit
together
in
in
relatively
bad
shape.
So
next
slide.
I
think
there
is
no
next
slide.
Yes,
the
document
predates,
as
I
say,
it's
old,
so
it
predates
the
current
chart
of
the
internet
architecture
board
the
current
charter
of
the
isg
and
and
all
the
changes,
the
rfc
editor
function
and
its
relationship,
the
iatf,
to
say
nothing
of
those
changes
which
are
further
changes
which
are
now
under
discussion.
C
So,
as
I
say
document
which
is
not
a
good
shape
document,
which
he
we
have
told
other
organizations
to
refer
to
and
trying
to
understand
the
iatf.
What's
going
on
in
the
ietf,
we're
probably
still
telling
newcomers
that
and-
and
it
just
doesn't
reflect
contemporary
reality
next
slide.
If
I'm
not
finished
so
possibilities,
one
possibility
is:
we've
been
successfully
ignoring
this
problem
for
at
least
two
decades,
and
we
could
continue
to
do
that.
C
Second
possibility
is
make
it
historic
erected
tombstone
and
tell
those
who
look
for
it
either
where
to
go
instead
or
they're
on
their
own.
Those
two
options
might
be
equivalent
and
the
third
possibility,
obviously
is
to
revise
and
replace
the
thing.
That's
not
probably
not
a
small
rewriting
task,
because
some
of
the
things
one
might
replace
it
with
our
are
probably
controversial
and-
and
there
may
not
be
agreement
of
what
to
say
next.
C
D
E
Ahead
well,
firstly,
thank
you,
john
for
succinctly
setting
out
the
problem,
which
has
really
helped
what
impressed
how
quickly
he
managed
to
do
that.
Well,
on
your
three
so
substantive
options,
I
I
guess
I'm
struggling
to
see
any
viable
option
other
than
revise
and
replace
the
thing,
because
it
would
seem
to
me
to
be
more
for
a
standards
body
to
to
have
set
some
standards
of
how
it
behaves
the
the
just
plain
wrong.
I
would
have
thought
that
undermines
the
whole
premise
of
everything
else.
E
The
itf
does,
dare
I
say
it
if
it
can't
even
get
its
procedures
right
not
without,
and
that's
not
trivializing
the
task,
because
it
clearly
would
need
people
with
a
lot
of
detailed
historic
knowledge
of
lots
of
things
in
order
to
actually
do
it.
But
I
think,
in
my
view,
it's
something
which
now
you've
identified
it
and
drawn
attention
to
it.
It
needs
to
be
done.
So
that's
my
view.
Thank
you.
F
C
I
see
the
downside
as
as
closely
connected
to
what
andrew
just
said,
we're
pointing
other
people.
This
document
we've
got
other
documents
which
point
to
it.
We're
we've
told
other
standards
bodies
in
the
past
that
when
they
are
trying
to
sort
out
the
iab,
iasg,
ietf
and
isaac
relationships
that
this
is
where
they
should
go.
C
Look
so
there's
a
a
little
bit
of
a
credibility
problem,
there's
a
little
bit
of
an
introduction
to
newcomers,
problem
and
and
and
like
andrew,
I
I
don't
consider
those
first
two
options
viable,
but
but,
as
I
think
I
told
at
least
francisco
a
few
days
ago,
I'm
I'm
more
than
happy
to
try
to
work
with
someone
or
advise
someone
on
on
writing
and
editing
this.
But
I
don't
have
time
to
do
it
myself.
C
H
Yeah,
the
other
day,
john
touched
on
a
couple
of
the
downsides.
I
think,
having
you
know
the
dow,
the
itf,
which
is
way
too
long,
but
for
newcomers
to
look
at,
but
there
are
people
having
run
a
bunch
of
the
newcomer
sessions
over
the
past
few
years.
It'd
be
really
nice
to
have
a
short
document
that
says
this
is
how
we
are
structured
for
newcomers
for
people
who
and
newcomers
come
from
various
places.
They
come
as
engineers
who
want
to
work
on
things.
H
They
come
to
us,
as
you
know,
full-fledged
heavyweight
international
standards,
organizations
who
want
to
get
liaisons
and
we
don't
have
a
single,
clear
document
that
says:
here's
how
it
goes,
and
it's
kind
of
embarrassing
to
say,
oh
yeah.
This
is
this.
It
is
what
it
is
ask
around,
which
is
really
what
the
only
alternative
is
now.
D
I
Popping
on
exactly
the
same
bandwagon
here
that
it
not
only
is
it
really
unprofessional,
it
is
really
unwelcoming
to
anyone
new
coming
along
to
to
see
an
organization
that
can't
even
that
doesn't
even
know
how
it
works
in
a
defined
way.
I
mean
yes,
everybody
knows,
but
the
everybody
knows,
and
the
only
way
to
find
out
is
to
ask
a
bunch
of
people
and
and
build
tribal
knowledge,
build
cargo
cult,
your
understanding
of
how
it
goes
all
these
terms.
It's
that's
not
the
way
that
any
serious
organization
has
its
org
chart.
I
I
J
So
I
think
I
would
say
that
to
me:
I've
been
looking
at
this.
You
know
inclusiveness
problem,
and
this
seems
like
a
big
part
of
it,
that
the
organization
organization
structure
is
rather
opaque
and
not
only
to
newcomers.
I've
been
around
over
30
years
and
I
can't
hardly
keep
track
of
who's
doing
what
anymore
or
where
to
go.
When
I
have
a
certain
issue,
having
said
that,
so
I
think
I
think
this
information
needs
to
be
updated
in
some
form.
J
I'm
not
sure
that
an
rfc
is
the
best
way
to
do
it,
because
rfcs
are
there's
so
many
of
them
out
there
and
we
don't
remember
which
rfcs
do
what
anymore.
It's
almost
a
way
of
hiding
the
information.
So
I
think
rfcs
are
good
places
to
put
details
so
that
if
you
have
a
lot
of
details
that
need
to
be
specified,
you
know,
and
someone
wants
to
go,
read
the
fine
print
sure
point
them
to
an
rfc.
J
D
D
K
I
think
for
this
document
to
be
useful,
it
would
have
to
be
a
living
document
that
that
kind
of
is
the
way
that
you
change
the
organization
rather
than
is
a
documentation
of
changes
that
have
already
been
made.
Looking
at
it,
it
has
been
updated
by
kind
of
references
to
other
rfcs,
rather
than
by
being
a
single
place,
you
can
look
to
to
learn
everything
which
is
not,
which
makes
it
not
useful.
D
L
Elliot
thanks
pete,
I
agree
with
jeffrey
by
and
large.
If
I
look
at
the
information,
that's
in
this
document,
we
have
a.
We
have
other
documents
that
cover
that
information
far
better.
At
this
point,
some
of
it
is
in
fact
in
the
tao
of
the
ietf.
Some
of
it
is
in
other
rfcs
and
some
of
it's
on
the
website
and
other
places.
I
think
probably
somebody
just
need
if
somebody
wants
to
they
would
just
go
and
maybe
work
with
somebody
like
greg
wood,
to
really
identify
the
right
places
for
this
information.
M
Thanks
elliot
dkg,
europe
hi
there
dinocon
gilmore,
so
I
think
this
com,
this
conversation,
is
a
difficult
one
to
have,
because
people
are
hearing
it
as
two
different
things.
I
think
people
are
hearing
this
as
the
itf
needs
to
be
reorganized
and
they're
also
hearing
it
as
we
need
a
better
documentation
of
what
the
current
situation
of
the
ietf
is.
M
That
is
the
living
document
project
that
I
think
other
folks
are
saying,
doesn't
fit
well
with
the
static
nature
of
the
rfc
and
then
the
tombstone
is
totally
adequate
to
just
say.
You
know
we
realize
that
our
organization
doesn't
work
in
this
in
this
static
way
and
you
can
find
better
documentation
in
the
following
places
and
I
think
a
tombstone
would
be
sufficient.
D
M
Existing
practice,
I
think
that
these
things
are
pretty
tightly
entangled
right.
I
mean,
when
you
start
asking
questions
about
who
is
really
responsible
for
a
thing.
Whoever
writes
that
document
is
going
to
find
themselves
coming
up
against
the
well.
This
person
is
nominally
supposed
to
do
it,
but
in
practice
you
actually
bring
it
over
to
this
group
and
they
know
how
to
like
turn
the
machinery
correctly.
So
I
think
it's
going
to
be
really.
N
Okay,
now
I
just
got
a
message
mid
checkout
that
wasn't
working.
So
I,
like,
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
what
dkg
is
saying
there,
and
this
is
largely.
I
view
this
more,
like
a
constitutional
sort
of
fine
detailed
document
that
nails
down
the
exact
details
of
our
process.
And
yes,
it's
totally
embarrassing
that
it's
wrong,
but
this
is
not.
We
could
should
not
try
and
revise
this
to
be
the
thing
that
helps
newcomers
or
other
organizations
figure
out
how
work
actually
happens
like
we
need
stuff.
N
That
does
that,
but
it
doesn't
need
to
be
a
document
like
this
in
the
slightest.
So
I
I
think
those
are
two
very
completely
separate
problems,
but
on
this
document
and
updating
it
I
mean
yeah,
it's
embarrassing
how
wrong
it
is,
but
I
it
seems
colossally
difficult
to
get
agreement
on
all
the
stuff
that
updates
it.
So
I'm
I'm
a
little
bit
on
the
the
version
of
you
know.
You
can
troll
through
the
updates
for
other
documents
that
that
have
updated
this
one
obsolete
and
whatever
and
figure
out.
N
What's
going
on,
I'm
I'm
not
totally
sure
we,
you
know,
unless
somebody
has
a
huge
amount
of
energy
to
put
into
dealing
with
that
the
use
case
of
fixing
the
sort
of
constitution
of
this
stuff,
not
fixing
the
educational
documentation
of
what
people
use.
This
sounds
like
it's
just
going
to
be
a
huge
quagmire,
so
I
I
would
want
us
to
be
really
clear
on
what
the
scope
of
change
is.
Where.
N
D
O
C
Newcomers
do
look
at
this
because
the
website
turns
out
to
be
very
pretty
but
impenetrable,
and
maybe
maybe
we
should
fix
that
other
standards
bodies
look
at
this
either
because
we've
pointed
them
to
it
or
because
they
want
one
thing
to
look
at
or
because
the
website
is
impenetrable
and
the
towel
is
too
long
to
pay
attention
to
and
with
regard
to
living
documents.
I
understand
the
argument.
C
Then
then,
the
state
of
this
and
saying
go
read
the
tower.
Go
read
these
six
things
is
not
helpful,
and
so
I
think,
there's
really
a
strong
argument
for
a
document
like
this
there's
a
strong
argument
for
a
document
like
this
being
more
than
stable
enough
to
keep
in
the
rfc
series,
even
though
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it
should
be
in
the
rfc
series.
C
So
let's
try
to
calibrate
this
relative
to
newcomers,
external
impressions,
people
trying
to
learn
what's
going
on
one
could
get
rid
of
it
and
replace
it
by
crisp
reference
as
to
where
to
look.
But
again,
that's
not
really
a
satisfactory
solution,
although
it
might
be
a
good
intermediate
stage.
Thanks.
P
Yeah,
I
mean
so,
it
seems
to
me,
like
you
know
the
having
for
this
document
like.
If
the
task
at
hand
is
this,
is
their
two
tasks
at
hand?
One
is
to
provide
like
what
do
you
need
to
be
a
newcomer
and
like
be
successful
at
itf
and
like
a
document
shape
like
this
is
like
whether
it's
in
rc
or
whatever?
P
If
you
want
to
like
understand
tls,
you
know
you
wouldn't
go
to
a46
you'd
like
want
to
have
a
document
described
like
how
sales
worth
the
high
level,
and
then
you
dig
84
46
for
the
details.
So
you
know,
while
I
understand
that
our
our
process
is
going
to
be
changing
that
rapidly
the
and
so
one
might
imagine
like
that,
whatever
document
you
produce
to
explain
them,
you
know
does
not
need
to
like
change.
P
Also,
I
don't
that's
correct
because
you
know,
as
we
iterate
through,
like
people
coming
in
and
people
trying
to
understand.
What's
going
on,
you
know
it
will
be
helpful
to
be
able
to
revise
the
documents
easily
in
order
to
make
them
clearer.
As
we
understand
people
find
confusing
people
not
and
the
sort
of
like
rfc
formula
is
not
particularly
well
suited
for
that.
So,
while
the
while
structures
may
be
stable,
the
documentation
in
this
case
for
newcomers
not
to
be
stable,
unnecessarily
and
like
this
is
like
what
the
web
is
good
for.
P
J
E
Q
Q
So
I
think
we
should
make
it
historic,
because
this
I
think
we
should
go
hand
for
pointers
to
it
and
destroy
them
point
them
to
the
tower
I
mean
if
we
have
a
towel
that
is
unreadable,
then
we
have
within
the
tower.
We
have
a
tower
problem,
so
middle
alternative
for
me.
Dispatch
it
to
go
is
go
historic
and
and
get
those
pointers
fixed.
E
E
The
problem
I
think,
having
dirty
cutler
is
not
not
a
good,
a
good
look
for
a
restaurant,
and
that
needs
to
be
fixed,
so
you
can
either
make
it
historic,
which
I
think
personally
well
or
revise
it,
but
ignoring
it
seems
unhelpful,
may
get
closed
down
when
the
food
inspectors
come
round.
So
I
think
that's
asking
for
trouble,
not
changing
it,
because
the
website,
the
tao
and
assorted
other
documents
that
people
might
think
are
very
equally
wrong
out
of
date
impenetrable
and
nobody
uses
them
anyway.
E
It
also
seems
like
a
really
bad
argument
to
me:
yeah
that
just
talks
the
fact
that
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
things
that
need
to
be
fixed
but
you've
got
to
start
somewhere
and,
finally,
I'm
sorry
just
laughing
at
elliot's
comment
in
the
chat.
Finally,
dare
I
say
this:
this
does
link
with
the
next
topic
on
the
agenda,
because
diversity
doesn't
improve
if
you've
got
enormous
barriers
to
entry
to
an
organization.
E
R
Yeah
so
interesting
problem,
thanks
for
finding
it,
my
my
view
is
probably
slightly
different.
I'm
not
sure
that
historic
is
right,
because
I
don't
generally
think
that
we
should
remove
important
information,
although
the
historical
still
exists.
So
maybe
that's
you
know
not
actually
the
case.
I
actually
think
we
ought
to
update
it
not
to
make
any
changes.
No
modifications
whatsoever
just
only
clarifications
to
what
the
existing
state
is
right.
R
What
are
the
things
that
are
wrong
document
that
reword
it
throw
out
anything
that
you
know
is
no
longer
relevant
and
throw
out
anything
or
mark
as
no
consensus
where
we
have
disagreement
about
what
the
current
state
is,
I
think
one
of
the
rat
holes
will
be.
You
know.
One
person
says
this
and
the
other
person
says
this
about.
I
don't
know
how
the
iab
works,
or
you
know,
pick
any
random
one
of
the
organizations
during
that
document
and
just
documented
us
no
consensus
at
this
time
with
respect
to
a
living
document.
R
R
Q
Yeah,
I
think
I
pretty
much
want
to
second
what
was
just
said.
Maybe
it's
a
wishful
thinking
of
hearing,
but
I
think
maybe
we
should
decide
that
we
want
to
do
something
and
then
we
can
figure
out
whether
it's
a
web
page
on
the
website,
maybe
post
a
draft
and
then
see
if
you
want
to
progress
to
rfc,
to
replace
it
or
whether
it
just
becomes
a
web
page
on
the
website.
And
when
people
talk
about
tom
stone.
I'm
again,
I'm
not
entirely
sure.
D
Heaven
help
me
I,
I
might
actually
want
to
use
the
little
polling
tool,
because
I
I'm
trying
I'll
turn
my
video
back
on
I'm
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
how
many
folks
think
that
going
through
any
of
these
processes
to
re-document
in
some
way,
whether
it's
you
know
another
web
page
part
of
the
dow,
a
new
rfc,
whether
those
folks
are
outnumbered
by
the
let's,
just
kill
it
in
some
way,
either
by
ignoring
it
or
making
it
historic
and
moving
on
what
those
numbers
are.
Looking
like.
C
I
C
C
One
of
those
is
to
publish
a
document
somewhere,
which
says:
that's
obsolete,
hold
your
nose,
go
look
elsewhere
and,
and
the
other
is
published
document
which
says
that's
obsolete,
and
these
are
the
specific
places
to
look
for
these
other
things,
and
that
was
one
of
these
came
up,
at
least
in
jabber,
and
it's
clearly
an
option
here.
I
I
have
problems
with
it,
because
telling
people
to
look
at
a
list
of
things
becomes
a
different
kind
of
barrier
to
entry.
D
How
many
people
want
to
make
this
document
historic
or
otherwise,
say
this
is
obsolete
and
go
no
further
and
and
with
those
two
answers
I
think,
maybe
we'll
have
a
little
better.
So,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
take
my
hand
at
the
tool.
Here,
everybody
hang
on
tight,
so
I
I
I
think
it's
best
to
not
do
anything.
D
P
D
D
D
D
to
d
anybody
else,
wanna,
yeah,
good,
okay,
so
yeah,
the
the
general
sense
of
the
room
is
doing
absolutely
nothing.
There's
a
few
people
who
think
that's
a
good
idea,
but
for
the
most
part,
people
want
to
at
least
mark
the
document
as
historic,
okay,
so
we'll
that
that
seems
like
a
good
start.
So
now,
this
is
all
the
next
two
we're
going
to
go
on
the
assumption
that
we
mark
the
document
as
obsolete
or
historic.
D
D
N
I
I
was
going
to
say
the
same
thing
as
stephen
so
but
basically
I
think
the
same
thing
at
the
web
page
stuff
like
I
mean
I
think
completely
nothing
to
do
with
this
document.
We
need
to
improve
our
web
pages
for
newcomers
and
whatever
that's
like
a
no-brainer,
but
that's
that's
I
don't
I
I
I
don't
want
to.
I
think
it's
bad
to
confuse
those.
N
R
D
I'm
raising
right
right
right
in
both
of
these
cases.
I'm
the
question:
I'm
asking
is
just
document
existing
practice.
If
we
can,
with
understanding
that
you
know,
you
know,
dkg's
comment
that
that's
inevitably
fraught
with.
Is
this
really
the
the
current
thing?
Are
we
pushing
for
stan?
You
know
adding
structure
where
there
really
isn't
some
right
now.
L
D
B
B
In
the
you
know,
the
current
cms,
which
is
very
painful
process-
and
my
was
something
that
I
took
away
from
that-
which
is
this
sort
of
like
design
of
information
in
a
collection
of
web
pages
by
a
large
group,
is
not
a
great
strategy.
It
doesn't
yield
really
what
you
would
want
it
to
yield.
So
if
there
can
be
sort
of
a
generic
option
about,
you
know
ensuring
that
some
set
of
information
is
available
on
the
website
or
something
like
that.
B
B
T
Anyway,
I
don't
know
if
this
has
been
discussed
before,
but
it
it
seems
to
me
like
part
of
what
we're
getting
at.
Is
that
there's
this
new
class
of
document
that
when
we
have
our
keys
and
they
get
rewritten
or
updated,
there's
betrayal
around
what
populates
other
things
when,
in
fact,
what
we're
hinting
towards
and
marching
towards
seems
to
be
a
lie,
a
living
document
and
is:
has
there
been
discussion
about
what
these
obsoleted
documents
point
to?
Is
a
living
document
on
on
the
web
somewhere
hosted
on
the
ietf
website?.
D
D
Yeah,
well,
that's
a
good
question.
I
mean
that
that's
sort
of
what
I'm
putting
into
the
category
of
make
a
new
web
page,
but
I
I
hear
alyssa's
concern
that
maybe
we'll
whittle
this
down
to
something
needs
to
be
done
to
keep
things
up
to
date
on
the
web
and
and
then
if
people
are
sort
of
leaning
in
that
direction.
If
that's
the
direction
we're
going,
maybe
we'll
you
know
we'll
figure
out
what
it
is.
People
mean
by
that.
D
D
A
A
U
S
S
D
U
A
D
D
D
L
D
A
D
D
I
G
C
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
one
could
want
to
update
the
web
pages
and
still
believe
that
having
an
rfc
is
a
good
idea.
Absolutely
absolutely
I
know,
and
we
did
not
limit
people
to
one
choice,
yeah
and
and
to
a
certain
extent
the
amount
of
work
needed
is
overlaps
very
heavily.
Getting
back
to
early
support.
D
Yeah
I
took
a
lot
of
the
do
not
raise
hand
on
the
the
rfc
thing.
Is
people
actually
indicating?
I
I
think
doing
it
on
the
web?
Is
fine,
but
doing
it
in
rfc
is
not
so.
Okay
yeah
and
we've
got
26
to
2
out
of
the
58.
On
that
question,
I
think
that's
enough
information
to
bring
back
to
the
list
and
get
you
know
a
dispatch
out
of
this
of
some
form
or
another
and
people
I
mean
elliot's
point
is
well
taken.
D
We
we
can
sort
of
re-ask
of
people
would
be
it
would
doing
an
rfc,
be
okay.
If
someone
else
was
gonna
write
it
not
me
and
and
find
out
how
that
goes,
but
this
is
at
least
sufficient
information
to
bring
back
to
the
list
and
get
some
get
some
feedback
on
to
dispatch
this,
but
I
I
I
at
least
smell
where
this
is
going.
I
think
anything
else
on
this
john
go
ahead.
P
P
C
D
D
K
V
Okay,
so
I'm
fernando
and
I
will
be
presenting
the
document
on
diversity
and
inclusiveness
in
the
itf.
It's
a
document
that
we
co-author
with
keith
moore
and
this
document
arrives
as
a
result
of
the
discussions
that
we
have
had
on
the
gen
dispatch
mailing
list,
while
chartering
the
the
term
working
group.
Okay,
so
next
slide.
V
Okay,
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
became
you
know
clear.
While
we
were
discussing
this
topic
of
diversity
and
inclusiveness
is
that
you
know
to
a
large
extent,
you
know
different
people
were
referring
to
or
were
implying,
different
things
when
they
were.
You
know
talking
about
diversity
and
inclusion.
V
So,
in
order
to
you
know
to
frame
the
discussion
in
an
upright
way,
let's
clarify
what
we
mean
by
each
of
these
things,
so
the
first
of
the
terms
is
diversity
which,
essentially,
throughout
the
document
we
use
to
imply
us
showing
a
great
deal
of
variety
like
different
things.
So
we
look
at
the
organization,
the
itf.
We
look
at
itf
leadership
and
we
expect
to
see
variety.
Okay.
V
Then
there
is
a
different
term
which
is
related
to
diversity,
but
implies
different
things,
which
is
inclusion,
which
essentially
talks
about
a
culture
and
an
environment
where
everyone
has
equal
chances
to
participate.
So
this
means
that
inclusion
has
to
do
with
providing
providing
an
environment
that
essentially
fosters
diversity.
Okay,
throughout
our
document.
For
the
most
part,
what
we
try
to
work
on
is
on
inclusion
and
have
diversity
as
a
side
effect
of
that
inclusion.
Okay.
V
So
what
do
we
mean
by
variety
which
I
referred
to
before,
and
this
is
something
that
you
know
also
was
discussed
on
the
mailing
list.
We
essentially,
you
know
mean
every
possible
aspect
that
you
can
think
of
like
range
of
different
social
and
ethnic
backgrounds,
different
genders,
different
sexual
orientations,
different
countries
and
regions,
different
types
of
organizations,
company,
non-profits,
etc.
V
This
is
just
a
sample
of
some
of
the
things
that
we
mean
by
variety,
but
this
list
is
non-exhaustive
and
is
in
no
particular
order.
Okay,
so
this
means
that
when
we
talk
about
diversity,
we
want
to
see
we
want.
You
know
variety
or
diversity
in
each
of
these
different
aspects
and
categories.
If
you
wish
next
slide.
V
Okay,
so
what
we
try
to
do
in
our
document,
which
you
can
think
of
as
a
problem
statement
document,
is
to
try
to
analyze
different
aspects
that
essentially
are
structural
issues
that
make
the
ietf
not
as
inclusive
as
we
might
wish.
Okay.
So
there
are
several
categories
that
we
have
identified:
perceived:
return
of
investment
effects
of
current
participation,
diversity
in
its
groups
and
leadership,
roles,
processes,
etc,
etc.
V
V
So
first
one
is
the
perceived
return
of
investment.
Like
you
know,
when
you
know,
obviously,
participation
take
takes
time,
efforts
money
at
times
too,
and
you
know
for
people
that
people
and
organizations
that
you
know
participate
in
the
itf.
They
are
obviously
have
a
motivation
for
doing
so.
In
the
case
of
you
know,
organizations
companies
among
the
possible
reasons,
are
that
they
might
benefit
from
iprs.
V
V
Second,
one
is
the
effects
of
current
participation.
Okay,
so
obviously
current
participation
is
reflects.
You
know
the
previous
slide
that
we
have
seen,
and
you
know,
for
obvious
reasons.
The
current
participation
results
in
a
bias
in
a
number
of
areas.
First,
one
is
perception
perception
of
structural
issues.
Okay,
it's
obviously
you
know
harder
in
a
way
to
to
to
perceive
or
understand,
let's
say
a
problem
or
a
challenge
that
yeah,
you
are
not.
You
know
facing
yourself.
V
V
V
Essentially,
you
know
judging
working
group
consensus,
community
consensus,
all
appeals
in
the
case
that
there
are
appeals,
something
similar
happens
for
you
know
for
the
case
of
the
non-com
and
the
aib
similar
stuff,
and
in
some
cases
you
may
also
have
arbitrary
decisions
that
you
know
are
produced
and
enforced
by
such
groups.
You
know
without
a
lot
of
community
consensus
on
them.
V
Other
things
processes.
There
are
some
things.
There
are
some
of
our
process
that
are
kind
of
like
loosely
specified,
and
this
can
be
beneficial
in
some
scenarios
that,
because
you
know
it
gives
freedom,
for
example,
to
work
in
group
chairs
regarding
to
how
to
handle
processes.
But
in
other
cases
you
know
it
can
be
problematic
for
participants
because,
for
example,
they
don't
know
what
to
expect
like
the
the
expectations
you
know
are,
you
know,
are
don't
necessarily
match.
You
know
what
actually
happens.
V
V
Another
one
is
the
difficulty
in
joining
or
participating
in
the
ietf.
Well,
first
of
all,
finding
interesting
groups
and
areas
there
are
so
many
of
them
that
at
times,
particularly
for
a
newcomer,
it
may
be
challenging
to
identify
you
know.
What's
the
working
group
where
they
might
be
able
to
contribute
which
working
group
they
should
you
know,
take
a
proposal
if
they
have
any
and
so
on.
There
are
also
challenges
that
you
know
involve
authoring
and
submitting
internet
trust.
This,
of
course,
has
to
do.
V
Among
other
things,
you
know
with
the
requirements
that
you
know,
internet
reps
have
to
comply
with
per
se,
which
nowadays,
I
guess
you
know
for
most
of
most
of
us.
If
you
need
to
produce
an
internet
draft,
there's
not
you
know,
you
need
to
rely
on
on
some
of
the
tools
to
do
that
because
of
the
number
of
requirements
that
may
be
a
challenge
for
particularly
for
newcomers.
V
There
are
also,
for
example,
in
the
case
of
xml
to
rfc.
There
are
different
versions.
I,
for
example,
I
you
know
you
might
be
able
to
handle
version,
two
kind
of
like
quite
well,
maybe
not
so
much
version,
3,
etc,
etc,
and
when
it
comes
to
discussion
there
are
also
challenges
there.
There
are
people
that
you
know
find
you
know
the
discussions
on
the
mailing
lists,
kind
of
like
challenging.
V
V
There
are
a
lot
of
expenses
associated
with
you
know,
with
attending
meetings,
travel
accommodation,
you
know,
dinners,
breakfast
lunches
and
so
on
most
of
them
you
know
in
a
way
we
don't
control
and
there's
also
the
you
know.
The
issue
of
meeting
phase,
which
you
know
is
something
that
is,
you
know
more
in
under
our
control.
V
You
know
in
this
respect.
I
do
believe
that
you
know
this
document
in
the
schmo
working
group
is
a
really
really
good
thing
and
it's
a
step
in
in
the
right
direction.
Obviously
it
doesn't-
and
it
can't
I
address
some
of
the
other
expenses
which
are
you
know
impossible
to
address
by
the
itf,
but
I
do
think
that
it
helps
a
lot
in
that
area.
V
There
are
also
educational
constraints,
you
know
normally
in
order
to
you
know,
become
involved
in
the
ietf.
You
need
to
have
at
least
some
knowledge
of
you
know.
A
lot
of
you
know
different
topics,
you
know-
and
you
know
a
little
bit
about
internet
protocols
a
little
bit
about
transport
protocols,
congestion
control,
dns,
etc,
etc.
V
V
I
think
this
is
the
the
final
one.
When
it
comes
to
the
you
know,
different
aspects
of
areas
it
has
to
do
with
cultural
issues.
First
one
is
language
like,
for
example,
the
recent
discussion
on
on
the
gen
dispatch.
Mainly
this
was
you
know
about
inclusive
terminology,
but
language
itself,
you
know
can
be
challenged,
can
be
challenging
in
you
know
many
different
ways
like.
V
I
would
probably
argue
that
for
a
large
number
of
us
you
know
we
speak
english
as
a
second
language,
and
that
can
be
a
challenge
at
times.
You
know
people
that
speak
english
as
a
native
as
a
native
language
might
use,
let's
say
expression,
expressions
or
jokes
that
for
a
non-native,
english
speaker,
you
know,
might
have
no
meaning
or
might
might
be
difficult
to
comprehend.
V
You
know
at
times
during
presentations.
This
can
also
be
a
challenge.
You
know,
for
those
that
you
know,
speak
english
as
a
second
language.
Using
email
effectively
might
also
be
a
challenge.
You
know
long
threads,
you
know
the
way
in
which
we,
you
know
technical
community
employs
email.
You
know
no,
no
html
email,
you
know
we.
We
quote
parts
of
the.
You
know
the
the
email
that
we
want
to
respond
and
so
on,
and
there
are
also
issues
that
are
associated
with
the
you
know.
V
With
the
comfort
zone,
they
may
be
related
with
culture
itself.
You
know
in
some
cultures
at
times
the
kind
of
discussions
that
we
may
have
in
the
ietf
might
not
be,
let's
say,
culturally
culturally
acceptable
for
them.
There
are
other
issues
like
there
might
be
people
working
in
certain
fields
that
you
know
the
fact
that
they
occupy
a
certain
role
or
certain
position
in
the
company
means
that
you
know
they.
They
don't
get
involved
into
certain
kinds
of
discussions,
whereas
you
know
in
the
itf.
Essentially,
you
are
supposed
to
be
willing
to.
V
So
before.
Actually,
you
know
the
the
discussing
the
slide
and
the
moving
forward
thing.
Let
me
just
mention
that
you
know.
While
talking
to
the
to
the
chairs,
we
agreed
to
essentially
split
the
presentation
in
two
parts.
The
first
part
the
problem
statement,
which
is
what
we
have
here
and
the
second
part
to
have
some
proposals
for
some
of
the
topics
that
we
have
discussed.
So
we
could
now
you
know,
focus
and
discuss.
V
You
know
what
could
be
a
good
next
step
for
this
problem
statement,
and
you
know
once
we
make
a
decision
on
that,
then
we
can
discuss
the
you
know
some
of
the
proposals
that
we
have
for
you
know
for
addressing
some
of
these
issues.
Among
the
you
know,
among
the
possible
options,
I
guess
is
an
ad
sponsored
document.
The
other
possible
option
would
be
the
creation
of
a
you
know.
D
Yeah-
and
I
think
you
know,
a
subcategory
of
new
working
group
is
well
not
quite
sure,
given
what
you've
said.
This
could
use
a
buff,
a
full
boss,
devoted
completely
to
this
topic,
to
sort
of
sort
out.
Whether
this
is
worth
the
working
group
or
not
so
should
we
have
a
little
discussion
here
on
the
moving
forward
piece
is
that
the
plan.
D
J
So,
if
we're
really
going
to
try
to
improve
diversity,
inclusion
in
itf,
it's
a
very
broad
topic
and
any
kind
of
remedies
would
I
mean
it's
the
sort
of
thing
that
you
would
address
differently
in
different
parts
of
the
organization
or
in
affiliated
organizations,
and
so
it
seems
like
a
lot
for
any
single
working
group
and
it's
especially
because
some
things
could
be
tools.
Some
things
could
be
structural
changes.
Some
things
could
be
better
documentation,
it's
possible
to
imagine
some
sort
of
ongoing
organization,
probably
not
a
working
group.
J
J
D
So
whether
the
structure
we
use
happens
to
be
a
working
group,
I
think,
what's
important-
is
laying
out
what
we
what
we
want,
that,
whatever
that
entity
is
to
do
so,
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
look
like
a
traditional
working
group
with
particular.
You
know
milestones
and
goals.
For
you
know
this
document
that
document.
J
And
I
kind
of
don't
care
what
it's
called,
but
I
do
think
that
sometimes
we
get
in
a
habit
of
working
that
is
conditioned
by
working
in
so
many
working
groups
where
the
goal
is
to
publish
some
documents
and
be
done,
and
I
kind
of
think
if
the
structure
of
whatever
this
ends
up
being
doesn't
encourage
that
that
habit-
maybe
we're
better
off.
But
it's,
I
think
it's
a
topic
to
be
sort
of
discussed
among
leadership,
because
clearly
I
don't,
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
figure
this
out.
S
S
E
Yeah
so
on
you
know,
given
that
there's
some,
I
think
some
good
recommendations
to
come.
I
think
this
is
a
helpful
presentation.
I
think
it
captures
and
identifies
a
really
important
topic
for
what
it's
worth.
I
think
this
is
far
more
important
than
the
already
potentially
challenging
topic
of
how
to
handle
a
few
problem
phrases.
E
I
think
this
is
the
significant
underlying
issue
that
needs
action,
and
I
think
an
important
first
step
is
acknowledging
that
there
is
a
problem
of
diversity
in
in
many
forms,
perhaps
measuring
that
in
some
way
and
then
looking
at
what
actions
to
take,
but
I
think
just
at
least
getting
agreement
that
it's
a
problem
that
needs
addressing
is
a
pretty
decent
start.
So
thank
you.
F
F
A
buff
sounds
initially
attractive,
but
kind
of
has
a
catch
22.
Doesn't
it
because
if
you
don't
do
it
face
to
face
it's
going
to
be
lacking
enormously,
and
if
you
do
it
face
to
face
it's
going
to
exclude
everybody,
you
want
to
kind
of
get
attracted
so
yeah
there
is
amazingness,
as
I
pointed
out
in
the
chat,
it
wasn't
necessarily
intended
exactly
for
this,
but
it
might
be
useful
of
the
topics
covered
in
the
draft.
F
It's
the
ability
to
spend
the
time
on
the
stuff
the
itf
cares
about
and
not
have
to
work
on
your
day
job
because
you're,
you
know
a
bus
driver
is,
I
think,
the
barrier.
That's
what
I
mean.
It's
not
the
case
that
I'm
not
talking
about
a
consultant
who
has
to
who's
so
busy,
making
a
thousand
books
an
hour
that
they
can't
be
asked.
So
that's
it
so
yeah.
I
think
madding.
This
discussion
continues.
Probably
the
best
yeah
concrete
outcome.
J
I
can
take
a
look
at
that.
I
think
it
is.
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
that
diversity
and
inclusion,
or
the
inclusiveness
or
whatever
word
you
want
to
use,
are
somewhat
different
things
and
we
it's
easy
for
us
to
sort
of
lump
them
in
together.
It
is
actually
possible
for
them
to
conflict,
so
I
just
want.
I
just
want
to
try
to
tease
those
apart
and
be
careful
about
which
we're
talking
about,
in
which
we're
understanding
you
could
make
ietf
more
inclusive
and
the
result
be
that
it's
less
diverse.
J
K
L
L
We
got
to
stop
meeting
like
this,
so
I'm
wondering
then,
if
there
are
multiple
paths
to
dispatch,
this
is
sort
of
in
parallel
to
a
point
that
that's
been
made
in
the
jabber
and
elsewhere.
What
is
it?
How
do
we
know
when
we've
succeeded
usually
involves
some
amount
of
collection
of
data
and
analysis?
L
L
L
W
Thanks
elliot
richard
europe
thanks,
so
I
I
want
to
plus
one
what
jeffrey
said
about
learning
from
what
other
groups
are
doing
here.
I
think
that,
following
the
w3's
example
and
starting
up
some
sort
of
group
where
we
can
have
these
discussions
is
really
important-
probably
a
good
idea
here.
Obviously
I
think
this
is
an
important
topic
to
talk
about.
The
reason
I
got
in
the
queue
was
that
the
notion
of
a
problem
statement,
kind
of
makes
me
nervous,
because
this
is
not
like
a
fixed
problem.
W
This
problem
is
not
fixed
for
for
all
time.
It's
not
really.
It
doesn't
really
make
sense.
As
you
know
an
rfc
to
me-
and
I
think
this
is
an
area
where
the
sort
of
waterfall
style
of
development
that
the
ietf
sometimes
falls
into,
or
we
do
a
problem
statement
and
some
requirements,
then
you
know
many
moons
down
the
road
we
get
to
a
solution
is,
is
really
antithetical
to
solving
this
problem.
Like
I
think,
there's
there's
points
of
urgent
action
here.
J
I
will
agree
with
that.
I
think
the
purpose
of
the
quote
problem
statement
isn't
to
completely
define
the
problem,
and
then
we
can
go
off
and
fix
it.
It's
more
like
just
to
give
the
community
a
sense
of
the
breadth
of
the
different
issues
and
also
a
chance
to
provide
input
so
that
we're
hearing
from
lots
of
different
people,
because
it's
very
easy
for
a
couple
of
authors
or
a
few
people
to
say.
Oh,
these
are
the
problems
and
completely
ignore
other
things
that
other
people
are
experiencing,
but
I
don't
yeah.
J
X
X
If
there's
a
way
to
reach
out
to
those
people,
just
really
aware
that
we're
gonna
have
this
self-selecting
bias
of
like
well,
I
attend
ietf
and
I
have
done
for
a
while,
and
I
find
the
biggest
issue
like
is
the
tool,
the
tool
system
and
like
okay,
but
you're
already
here
so
in
terms
of
inclusivity.
Maybe
you
know
you
feel
included
enough
that
you
are
still
able
to
participate
so
yeah,
I
think
elliot
said
that
we
can
kind
of
opine
as
to
what
the
reason,
the
main
reason
we
don't
have.
X
A
a
vast
diversity
in
the
itfa
is
why
people
don't
feel
included,
but
obviously
we're
coming
at
that
from
our
perspective
and
yeah.
Just
to
kind
of,
I
guess
a
question
or
like
a
caution
that
you
know
we
can
form
a
an
icf
working
group
to
have
a
good
think
about
why
people
don't
come
to
itf,
but
obviously
that's
not
the
best
breadth
of
representation.
You
could
get
there
so
kind
of
a
yeah
for
moving
forward.
J
Yeah,
I
would,
I
would
really
like
to
find
some
way
of
capturing
feedback
from
not
only
people
who
attended
once
and
they
didn't
come
back,
but
people
who
maybe
even
didn't
get
that
far
because
you
know
if
you
manage
to
attend
and
participate
at
all
you've
you've
crossed
several
barriers
and
probably
gained
access
to
resources.
Who
could
help
you
move
further?
But
we
don't.
We
have
no
idea
about
the
people
who
sort
of
don't
even
get
that
far
and
I
suspect
that's
a
very
underserved
population.
A
P
Thank
you
yeah,
I
mean
so
some
of
what
other
people
have
said.
I
think
you
know
I
think
it's
good
to
have
a
sort
of
survey
document
that
kind
of
covers
much
of
the
space.
These
are
issues
which
I
think
the
entire
industry
is
struggling
with,
with
more
or
less
success
in
various
axes.
So
I
think
you
know
it's
important
here
to
you
know
when
we
figure
out
things
that
we
can
do
like
find
out
some
find
some
way
to
do
them.
P
P
You
know
kind
of
a
incubator
or
a
nursery
for
new
ideas
and
then,
when
those
ideas
become,
you
know
become
right
for
for
work
as
the
as
a
as
the
term
work
did,
then
we
take
them
on
and
actually
give
them
an
itf.
So
you
know
I
I.
I
don't
think
that
we're
not
gonna
solve
like
the
entire
thing
in
one
shot,
so
especially
in
favor
of
like
you
know,
you
know,
I
think,
having
a
venue
where
we
can
try
to
like
make
incremental
forward
progress.
M
Yeah,
so
I
want
to
thank
the
authors
of
the
document.
This
is
this
is
overdue
for
the
ietf,
and
I
think
that
there's
a
pretty
good
initial
statement
here.
I
want
to
point
out
that
the
comfort
zone
point
that
they
raise
is
actually
pretty
critical
and
the
organizations
that
I've
been
part
of
that
have
tried
to
do.
This
kind
of
work
have
struggled
a
lot
internally
and
I
can't
imagine
that
the
ietf
would
not
also
be
struggling.
M
M
We
are
going
to
need
to
think
about
bringing
in
folks
outside
the
ietf
to
give
us
actual
critiques
actually
listening
to
them
and
the
process
of
doing
that
is
not
something
that
is
done
for
free.
If
you
want
to
get
somebody
to
come
and
give
you
a
organizational
analysis,
you
often
legitimately
need
to
pay
them
for
their
time
and
their
effort
and
they're
going
to
you're
going
to
be
paying
them.
M
To
tell
you
things
that
you
don't
want
to
hear
about
yourself,
and
so
we
can
talk
about
trying
to
do
this
ourselves,
and
I
think
we
should
be
trying
to
do
it
ourselves.
But
I
don't
think
we
should
only
be
trying
to
do
it
by
ourselves
and
we
need
to
we
think
about
how
we
allocate
resources
towards
towards
addressing
these
problems.
It's
not
going
to
be
for
free
and
it's
not
going
to
be
fun,
but
it
is
necessary.
D
Just
to
summarize,
I
mean
I'm
at
least
hearing
a
general
sense
from
folks
that
this
idea
of
setting
up
a
mailing
list
either
reusing
one
that
is
currently
stagnant
or
creating
a
new
one.
There
seems
to
be
at
least
some
momentum
for
that's
a
good
idea
and
then
figure
out
what
structures
to
put
behind
it
as
we
go.
D
C
J
D
J
J
J
Publishing
documenting
something
that's
done
is
great,
and
sometimes
you
will
need
an
rfc,
but
sometimes
again
you
might
need
tools.
Sometimes
you
might
need
organizational
changes.
Sometimes
you
might
need
just
to
recognize
existing
efforts
and
work
with
those
to
be
sort
of
a
to
have
them
dovetail
with
things,
and
sometimes
you
might
need
to
solicit
support
from
elsewhere.
Like
I
soccer
anyone
else,
for
instance,
that
could
fund
participation
for
people
who
can't
as
easily
participate
so
lots
of
different
things.
J
Again,
as
we
say,
we
probably
need
effort
from
multiple
parts
of
ietf
in
related
groups.
There
are
some
past
efforts
which
I
would
like
to
recognize
and
if
they're
still
ongoing,
maybe
encourage
them
some
some
and
sort
of
build
some
more
cooperation.
We
will
need
some
new
efforts.
Also,
as
I
said
earlier,
I
think
we
need
a
commitment
to
continuous
improvement
in
this
area.
So
this
is
you
know,
it's
not
a.
We
do
this
once
and
we're
done.
J
J
No,
I
think
we
just
need
to
continue
and
add
to
what
has
been
done
before
and
and
continue
this
high
value
of
openness
and
realize
we
can
do
better
than
we've
done
and
conditions
have
changed,
and
sometimes
we
need
to
change
too,
and
the
last
problem
last
point
about
different
time
scales.
Some
things
can
be
fixed
quickly
and
some
things
are
going
to
need
longer
term
efforts.
So
next
slide
please.
J
J
J
So
in
some
ways,
that's
because
we're
more
diverse
and
that's
a
good
thing,
but
maybe
if
nom
com
could
adapt
to
relying
less
on
face-to-face
contact
and
more
things
online,
and
also
the
suggestion
that
nom-com
members
should
recuse
themselves
from
discussion
or
of
a
candidate,
that's
from
their
own
organization.
I'd
like
to
think
that
happens
already,
but
maybe
that's
not
the
case.
J
Fee
waiver
for
face-to-face
meetings-
obviously
that's
gonna
require
well.
We
can
understand
why
that
might
be
difficult,
but
that
certainly
the
the
cost
of
participating
in
face-to-face
meetings
is
a
barrier,
and
I
think
anything
that
we,
if
we
can
find
sponsors
or
ways
of
of
providing
economic
assistance
to
people
who
have
a
hard
time
attending
face-to-face
meetings.
J
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
thing
and
whether
that's
done
by
the
organization
making
things
cheaper,
whether
that's
done
by
finding
you
know
sponsors
or
scholarships
or
something
has
been
done
in
the
past.
I
don't
know,
but
I
think
it
does
need
to
be
kind
of
an
ongoing
thing
and
not
just
like
hey.
You
can
attend
one
meeting
and
that's
not
going
to
really
improve
the
inclusion
and
diversity
in
the
organization.
D
Yeah,
I
think,
if
you
know
again,
it
was
sounding
to
me
earlier
and
and
what
you
laid
out
doesn't
go
against.
This
is
that
there
is
some
momentum
for
let's
get
a
list
set
up
and
and
start
talking
about
it
there.
I
think
we
do
have
to
talk
about
structure
of
moderation,
whether
someone's
gonna
be
the
chair
or
some
sort
to
keep
discussions
going,
but
do
folks
wanna
make
any
comments
on
these
particular
and,
like
keith
said
it's
probably
not
worth
going
into.
G
J
E
Yeah,
it
was
just
maybe
picking
up
on
the
suggestion.
Pete
you
made
near
the
start
in
terms
of
next
steps.
Well,
firstly,
I
think
the
points
you
covered-
both
authors
here
in
the
paper
and
so
on,
were
good
and,
I
think,
a
good
starting
point,
a
solid
foundation.
There's
maybe
a
few
things
I
would
add
extra,
but
we
don't
need
to
discuss
those
here.
E
I
do
wonder
whether
a
good
next
step
to
put
more
substance
to
this,
though,
could
be
above
going
back
to
one
of
the
points
that
you
suggested
at
the
start.
Pete
there's
another
next
step
which
could
be
arranged,
I
think,
quite
quickly,
so
it
needn't
delay
things
just
to
get
just
to
maintain
some
momentum
because
just
doing
something
on
a
list,
I
think
it
would
lose
a
lot
if
that's
all
that
happened
next.
D
D
D
D
D
Else,
well,
I
think
we
have
some
direction
here.
I
think
at
the
very
least
we're
saying:
let's
get
a
mailing
this
set
up,
and
then
I
think
you
know
once
we
get
that
mailing
list
set
up,
let's
at
least
start
the
conversation
by
having
lars
who,
by
tomorrow
will
be
our
new
ad
sort
of
step
in
there
and
say:
okay,
you
know
start
the
discussion
of
how
we
should
structure
this.
D
A
D
And
yeah
to
alyssa's
question:
why
not
use
the
existing
list?
I
I
think
that's
not
a
problem.
I
think
and
keith
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
think
the
only
concern
was
that
that
had
sort
of
a
a
charter
of
its
own
at
some
point
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
conflate
it
with
that.
But
beyond
that,
if
there's
an
existing
list
and-
and
you
know
we
want
to
use
that-
I
think
it's
perfectly
reasonable.
J
D
B
Thanks
so,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
say
a
huge
thank
you
to
francesca
for
her
leadership
of
this
working
group
she's.
As
you
all
know,
moving
on
to
the
iasg
tomorrow,
so
she's
going
to
be
stepping
down
but
really
appreciate
everything.
You've
done
hasn't
always
been
easy,
and
you
know
this
is
kind
of
an
experiment
with
bringing
the
dispatch
model
to
the
general
area.
So
I'm
really
thankful
for
all
of
your
efforts
and
lars.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
who
we're
bringing
on.