►
From YouTube: IETF110-RFCEFDP-20210309-1200
Description
RFCEFDP meeting session at IETF110
2021/03/09 1200
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/110/proceedings/
C
C
All
right
I'll
remain
blissfully
ignorant
just
for
the
moment
on
that
point,
because
otherwise
we
won't
get
the
meeting
going
and
we
have
to
get
the
meeting
going.
First
of
all,
welcome
to
the
rfc
editor
future
program.
We
need
to
really
start
everybody.
C
I
think,
on
this
call
has
been
very
actively
participating.
The
group
has
been
very
active.
Thank
you
for
that.
I
know
that
a
number
of
people
are
double
booked
and
I
I
wish
we
could
have
done
something
better
about
that.
Maybe
we'll
do
something
better
about
that
in
the
future,
and
the
best
thing
we
can
do,
I
think,
is
to
be
efficient
in
terms
of
a
in
terms
of
our
proceedings
today.
C
Let's
see
here
so
with
that.
Just
a
reminder
to
note
well
during
our
interims
we've
had
all
of
our
veterans
show
up
who
have
always
noted.
Well,
thank
you
for
that
for
those
who
are
unfamiliar
with
the
notewell,
please
just
take
a
moment.
This
is
our
ipr
policies,
our
anti-harassment
policies,
working
group
processes,
you
name
it
all
of
our
policies.
Are
there
in
one
shot?
C
If
you
have
any
questions
about
any
of
these
policies,
as
relates
to
this
group,
please
don't
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
the
chairs,
who
are
yours,
truly
elliott,
lear
and
or
brian
rosen.
C
Okay,
let's
proceed
just
a
little
bit
further
mark
I'll
try
to
moderate
just
a
little
bit
here
for
you
all
right.
Here's
our
agenda.
We've
already
successfully
concluded
number
one
on
our
agenda.
We
have
a
little
bit
of
administrative
to
cover.
C
There's
one
thing
that
isn't
on
the
agenda
here,
which
I'll
just
mention
towards
the
end:
we're
going
to
continue
on
the
proposal
that
adrian
had
with
a
bit
of
a
perhaps
a
tweak
to
it
or
or
a
slight
alternate
from
joel
joel,
so
that
you
know
I've
upload.
I've
uploaded
your
your
slides.
So
if
you
want,
you
can
present
them
or
I
can
present
we'll
get
that
to
you
we'll
get
to
you
in
just
a
little
bit.
C
Okay,
very
good,
I
will
do
that.
It
will
take
me
just
a
moment
to
bring
them
up,
but
patience
will
be
required.
Okay,.
C
We
will
then
take
some
discussion.
I
suspect
we
may
not
get
beyond
item
number
three
here
in
terms
of
the
issues,
but
if
we
do
everybody's
getting
an
ice
cream
because
that
that
would
be
really
hard
work
done,
and
it
would
be
really
nice
to
be
able
to
this.
This
is
a
big
once
we
get
beyond
this
it's
I
think
we
will
really
have
momentum
to
complete
our
tasks.
C
There
are
some
other
issues
we
can
then
tackle.
If
we
do
have
a
little
extra
time,
we
do
have
a
next
meeting
date.
I'll
talk
about
that
in
a
little
a
little
bit
and
insert
somewhere
between
that.
In
the
end,
we
now
also
have
a
volunteer
for
a
document
editor.
You
do
for
those
of
you
who
have
read
email
for
those
of
you
who
are
just
getting
up.
C
You
may
not
have
seen
that,
and
so
you'll
get
some
news
in
a
little
bit.
Any
agenda
bashing.
C
Okay,
brian's
gonna
be
managing
the
floor
and
interrupting
me
regularly,
if
need
be
in
order
for
the
floor
to
in
order
to
to
do
that.
So
because
I
sometimes
don't
see
the
the
floor,
requests.
F
F
Requests
this
cue
in
the
in
the
chat.
C
Yeah,
okay,
moving
right
along,
so
I
just
by
way
of
review,
we
you,
some
of
you
may
recall
adrian
spent
some
time
he
put
forward
a
a
proposal.
We
think
we
have
agreement
on
the
not
so
controversial
stuff,
and
we
just
you'll
see
that
there
are
a
couple
questions
at
the
end.
That's
from
our
last
interim
things
that
we
have
to
work
out
just
a
little
bit
of
detail
around
in
terms
of
document
adoption.
I
don't
think
I
think
these
are
separate
from
from,
or
I
wouldn't
say
separate.
C
I
think
these
are
just
in
addition
to
this
in.
What's
in
a
so,
we
we
pretty
much
agreed
that
you
know
the
working
group
is
going
to
go
through
its
its
process
to
develop
documents,
and
then
you
know
gain
rough
consensus.
Roughly
speaking
using
the
same
sort
of
processes
that
you
would
see
in
an
ietf
working
group,
we
agree
that
there
will
be
a
working
group
last
call.
G
C
C
So
officially,
if
you
want
to
direct
anything
to
peter,
you
should
do
so
in
jabber,
or
at
least
he'll
reply
to
you
at
jabra
because
he's
on
the
audio
stream,
the
other
audio
stream,
then
there's
the
the
working
group
will
then
consider
a
public
comments
review
I
say,
read
here:
well,
we
have
to
figure
out
where
to
send
it
and
and
then
there's
a
little.
There
really
is
a
little
bit
more
work
to
do
here.
C
If
the
you
know,
if
it's
not
a
big
deal
in
terms
of
the
tweaks,
probably
the
last
call
isn't
called
for,
if
they're
big
tweets,
probably
a
last
call,
is
called
for
so
then
we
got
into
participation
by
members
the
approval
group.
Here
we
didn't
actually
finish
up
what
we
were.
What
who
hey,
who
the
approval
body
is?
C
We
didn't
even
even
talk
about
that
in
the
last
meeting
really,
and
it
was
just
sort
of
assumed
that
it
was
the
stream
managers,
but
we,
I
think
we
have
a
couple
of
different
ideas
floating
around
there.
The
other
thing
that
we
left
open
is
what
happens
if
somebody
can't
participate.
Should
there
be
an
alternate?
This
is
something
that
miriam
proposed
and
we
can
close
on
that.
So
these
are
some
things
we
probably
need
to
close
on
here.
C
Then
there
is
further
discussion,
one
of
the
things
we
I
think
we
said
we
were
pretty
close
to
done
on
this
one,
and
the
only
thing
is
that
we
think
probably-
and
this
is
something
I
believe
mike
st
john
suggested-
was-
that
we
should
just
move
this
either
into
or
directly
behind
c.
In
terms
of
once,
the
the
working
group
sends
the
the
document
off
that
this
is
what
happens
next,
and
this
is
about.
C
As
far
as
we
got
f,
we
we
talked,
we
talked
about
whether
there
would
be
a
yes,
no
abstain,
discuss
and
we've
had
a
couple
of
proposals
since
then,
including
return
to
working
group
and
you'll,
see,
I
think,
another
one
from
from
joel
in
his
proposal.
C
There
was
a,
I
think,
a
pretty
healthy
debate
about
this,
and
we
need
to
firm
up
our
positions
here.
I
I
don't
think
these
are
are,
as
I
think
I
said,
in
an
email.
I
don't
think
anything
here
is
a
it's
a
show,
stopper
we're
just
we're
just
polishing
a
little
bit
on
what
the
what
the
names
are,
and
I
think
whether
we
need
these
other
components
and
the
abstain
aspect
here.
This
ties
directly
about
to
whether
there's
an
alternate
one
of
the
issues
that
was
raised.
C
C
This
was
relating
to
why
somebody
might
raise
a
discuss
or
a
return
to
group
or
a
the
or
whatever.
I
think
it's
a
concern
that
joel
is
gonna
mention
later,
and
so
there
were
sort
of
three
choices
right
that
we
had
in
here,
and
I
think
everybody
was
pretty
comfortable
with
this.
C
There
was
some
amount
of
angst
over
this
and
some
amount
of
angst
over
this,
but
there
was
no
consensus
necessarily
to
remove
those
just
yet,
but
no
consensus
to
to
move
forward,
and
so
we'll
need
to
go
through
that
a
little
bit
more
in
terms
of
how
we're
proceeding-
and
I
believe,
yeah,
that
is
pretty
much
as
far
as
we
got,
and
so
with
that.
C
Not
does
not
I'm
not
asking
for
debate
at
this
point,
just
questions
about
the
preceding
meeting
or
other
topics:
okay,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
just
gonna
see
if
I
can
fiddle
with
the
display
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
missing
anybody.
I
don't
think
I
think
brian
would
tell
me
that.
Okay,
oh
there's
eric,
welcome
eric.
B
C
Don't
know
if
we
have
a
tools.
Problem
looks
like
eric's
asking
for
the
floor
to
me,
but
I
don't
know
if
I,
if,
if,
if
any,
we
have
to
do
anything
here
to
otherwise
help
eric
but.
C
Okay,
all
right,
so
what
I
propose
to
do
at
this
point,
then,
is
to
invite
joel
to
present
the
work
that
he's
done.
I
will
ask
you
to
just
bear
with
me,
as
I
bring
up
his
slides.
Did
I
put
them
in
just
a
moment.
B
B
C
But
I
guess
I
did
not.
Okay
just
a
moment.
E
C
Let
me
just
make
sure
that
I
wait
a
minute
I
have
to
share.
I
have
to
reshare
just
a
moment.
I
have
these
guys
up.
You
just
can't
see
them.
Let's
see.
E
E
All
right
there
we
are
let's
go
to
the
this.
Is
my
effort
to
try
to
put
some
proposal
on
the
table
based
on
what
we've
seen
before.
As
we
said,
there
will
be
a
working
group
open
to
everybody,
they'll
use
procedures
somewhat
modified
after
the
classic
ietf
procedures,
and
for
this
purpose
I
didn't
want
to
get
into
all
the
details
of
that
we've.
Had
some
discussion
go
on
next
slide?
Please,
and
there
is
an
approvals
board.
E
Actually
can
you
go
to?
No
full
screen
will
kill
you,
I'm
afraid
people
are
going
to
have
trouble.
Reading
these
they're
a
little,
it's
looking
a
little
small
on
my
screen
there
that
helps.
Thank
you.
E
So
there
will
be
an
approvals
board
as
elliott
just
went
through,
and
the
some
of
the
details
of
of
what
the
approvals
board
is
is
what
we're
going
to
try
to
go
through
right
now,
next
slide,
so
the
basic
process,
I'm
focused
again
on
the
approvals
board
here
when
the
working
group
finishes
a
document
and
approves
it
for
adoption.
It
goes
to
the
approvals
board.
E
While
the
document
is
being
circulated
to
a
larger
community,
as
was
mentioned,
the
board
members
will
carefully
review
the
document.
As
we
said,
we
expect
them
to
have
already
participated
in
the
working
group,
but
they
need
to
review
it
at
this
point
after
a
suitable
time
and
I'm
being
deliberately
vague
on
the
time.
My
own
preferences
in
terms
of
time
for
the
approvals
board
is
to
leave
it
to
them,
but
we
can
to
work
out
their
procedures,
but
we
that's
the
detail.
E
We
can
specify
the
only
votes
that
they
are
allowed
to
register
are
yes
concern
and
recuse
recuse
is
specifically
for
I
have
a
conflict.
I
can't
appropriately
vote
on
this
and
if
a
document
is
approved,
if
all
the
votes
are
yes
or
recused
and
if
a
weird
case
for
all
but
one
member
recused
and
the
remaining
one
says
yes,
it's
approved,
I'm
not
worrying
about
weird
corner
cases.
You
must
have
a
minimum,
in
fact,
if
they
all
recuse,
then
it
becomes
approved
it's
just
too
bad.
E
I
didn't
want
the
name
of
the
position
to
be
the
same
as
the
disposition,
so
I
didn't
like
return
to
working
group
as
the
name
of
the
vote,
and
there
was
concern
about
disgust
because
of
the
burden
and
just
concerned
about
no
because
of
its
implications.
So
I'm
suggesting
we
call
the
position
somebody
is
taking.
That
is
an
explicit
position
and
not
yes
to
be
concerned.
I
expressing
a
concern
about
the
document.
E
So,
and
I
tried
to
keep
things
simple-
there
are
only
two
kinds
of
concerns,
and
all
of
them
must
be
accompanied
by
clear
and
understandable
explanations
of
what
it
is.
The
problem,
I'm
not
unlike
the
iesg
discuss
policy.
They
may
not
be
actionable.
I
can't
if
the
concern
is
this
will
destroy
the
stream.
I
don't
want
to
insist
they.
They
specify
a
specific
action
to
fix
it,
that
the
concern
is
the
concern,
so
I'm
not
saying
it
must
be
actionable,
but
it
has
to
be
clear
and
understandable.
E
E
If
somebody
is
on
the
on
the
approvals
board
charged
with
representing
foo,
and
this
causes
serious
problems
for
foo,
then
that's
a
concern
that
they
have
the
right
to
raise,
and
the
second
kind,
therefore,
is
a
concern
that
causes
serious
harm
to
the
overall
series,
including
the
long-term
health
and
viability,
and
this
is
explicitly
any
board
member.
Any
member
of
the
approvals
board
can
raise
this,
I'm
not
saying
there's
one
person
who's
charged
with
this.
In
fact,
by
serving
on
this
board,
all
of
the
members
are
agreeing
to
be
looking
out
for
this.
E
H
Sorry
I
have
to
relearn
after
we
learn
the
whole
thing.
Yeah
cur
concern
serious
concern
versus
concern,
sorry
serious
harm
versus
harm.
I
I
don't
know
that
it
needs
to
be
even
serious.
I
think,
if
there's
a
problem
that
needs
to
be
identified,
not
just
a
yeah
we're
going
we're
to
have
to
re.
E
Just
go:
go
with
harman
problem;
yes,
please,
okay,
I'm
not
going
to
try
to
edit
them
on
the
fly,
but
I
think
whoever's
taking
minutes
can
note
that
and
assuming
that
the
new
document
editor
ends
up.
Turning
this
into
text
in
a
draft
assuming
we
actually
agree
to
it,
then
they
can
whatever
we
agree
on
that
can
become
things
ecker,
I
think,
has
a
responding
position.
Go
ahead.
Eric.
I
Sorry,
sorry,
sorry,
I'm
like
trying
to
like
follow
two
working
groups.
I'm
not
doing
it
very
well.
I
mean
so
like
I'll,
actually
want
to
find
the
exact
wording
here,
but
I
want
to
register
that,
like
any
proposal
that
is
worth
doing
is
going
to
cause
some
inconvenience
to
somebody,
and
so
the
idea
that
like
if
it
causes
any
harm
whatsoever
like
that
you
know
the
the
stream
managers
are
empowered
to
block
it.
Like
does
not
lexing
awesome.
So,
like
I
I
I
so
I
I
guess
I
was.
I
So,
first
of
all,
joel
thanks
for
this
together
I
such
as
that
first,
I
was
pretty
comfortable
from
thinking
with
the
set
of
criteria
in
part
because,
like
I
just
came
to
the
conclusion
that
trying
to
really
like
nail
it
down,
it's
like
not
gonna
work
super
well,
but
I
think
we
should
try
to
get
people
the
right
idea
and
the
right
idea
is
like
you
know
that
did
that
you
know
like
if
you're,
if
you're,
actually
letting
someone
have
that
kind
of
vague
position,
then
it
has
to
be
like
it
has
to
be
pretty
like
that,
as
opposed
to
just
like.
I
I
think
this
is
going
to
cause
some
minor
difficulty
because,
like
I
say
anything
is
going
to
cause
some
difficulty
anyway.
I
think
we
can,
but
I
think
generally,
I
think.
J
C
E
Okay,
let's
brian
asked
in
the
chat:
do
we
need
recuse?
If
we
have
alternates,
I
was
actually
not
assuming
there
were
alternates
in
part
because
it
gets
really
confusing.
Suppose,
there's
two
documents
on
the
table
and
somebody
is
saying
I
can't
vote
on
a,
but
I
can
I'll
take
care
of
my
job
on
b.
Do
we
have
an
alternate
for
a
it?
Just
struck
me
as
creating
a
complication
that
that
we
don't
need
and
recusal
should
be
extraordinarily
rare.
So
I
just
thought
it
was
much
simpler
to
focus
on
these
are
the
members.
E
That
that's
why
I
wrote
it
this
way.
I
I
didn't
go
for
alternates
and
all
of
the
my
I'm
trying
to
keep
this
simple,
because
if
we
make
it
too
complicated,
we
will
find
we
have
written
corner
cases
that
don't
work
the
way
we.
E
Want
but
back
to
serious,
significant
versus
just
leaving
out
the
word
serious.
I
have
no
problem
personally.
If
we
change
serious
to
significant.
That's
that's
a
mass
next
for
me.
I
do
think.
Actually
we
want
to
emphasize
that
it's
got
to
rise
to
a
noticeable
level,
and
I
disagree
with
mike
that
just
any
harm,
but
let's
go
to
the
next
slide,
because
I
believe
there
were
questions
about
that
too,
but
I
wanted
to
get
the
positions
on
before
we
got
to.
What
do
we
do
about
them?.
E
So
the
question
then
becomes
how
what
happens
if
somebody
raises
a
concern,
the
desired
approach
would
be
that
the
working
group
listens
and
goes.
Oh,
okay,
we'll
just
fix
it,
but
that
is
presumably
unlikely
as
the
natural
outcome,
no
matter,
but
everybody
should
always
and
hold
the
whole
process.
Keep
in
mind,
that's
what
would
be
the
desired
result.
E
A
suitable
fix
is
found,
the
working
group
does
it
and
we
move
on.
But
presumably
this
was
already
raised
during
the
working
group,
because
we've
already
said
all
the
members
of
the
approvals
board
have
to
be
participating
in
the
working
group.
That's
their
commitment
as
part
of
this.
They
they
have
to
be
raising
their
concerns.
I
mean
we
won't
write
into
the
rules
they
have
to.
If
they
find
the
concern
at
the
last
minute,
they
can
raise
it,
but
it
would
be
expected
that
they
would
raise
things
during
that.
That's
their
job.
So.
E
K
E
A
formal
vote
can
can
be
taken
to
override
the
concern
and
if
only
one
board
member
has
the
concern,
that's
it
the
rest
of
them
say
no.
The
override
is
done.
The
document
is
approved
if,
after
the
discussion
at
least
two
board
members,
presumably
the
one
raising
conservative
at
least
one
more.
I
don't
know
how
else
you'd
get
to
be
really
weird
for
person
a
to
raise
the
concern
decided,
it
doesn't
apply,
but
persons
b
and
c
didn't
apply
the
concern,
but
the
way
I've
written
it.
E
Yes,
this
allows
the
working
group
to
keep
sending
it
back.
If
that-
and
I
don't
know
I'd
I'd
rather
try
to
solve
that
problem,
I
think
everybody
would
realize
wait.
We
have
a
problem
here
and
they'll
figure
out
a
way
to
solve
it.
If
that's
what's
happening
so
keeping
it
simple,
but
focusing
on
there's
an
override,
if
there's,
if
there's
only
one
person
with
the.
I
Procedure,
so
this
general
thing
seems
plausible.
I
like
would
like
to
put
a
pin
in
the
question
of
how
many
people
we
need
to
override
because
there's
a
subsequent
question
about
whether
the
rsc
is
part
of
this
board
and
why
I'm
comfortable
with
this
number,
if
the
rsc
is
not
part
of
this
board,
I'm
most
comfortable
with
this
so
like
so
I
wanna
like
I
wanna
I
wanna
I
wanna
approve
that
say
I
approve
this
except.
I
I
have
a
wanna
put
like
a
like
a
red
circle
on
the
two
on
the
two
or
something
right.
E
My
view
is
to
keep
this
small
and
that
it
would
be-
and
my
proposal
is
it's-
the
stream
heads
which
is
currently
four
that
could
number
could
go
up
or
down,
and
things
happen
and
the
paid
professional,
technical
publishing
expert,
which
is
the
the
long
phrase
I
use
for
what
we're
calling
the
rse
or
rsa
or
whatever.
I
just
I
wanted
to
be
clear.
E
E
I
mean
trying
to
put
term
limits
on
the
stream
representative
seems
to
be
putting
limits
on
the
way
the
streams
do
things
they
all
have
their
own
policies,
which
provide
term
limits.
Putting
a
term
limit
on
the
paid
professional,
technical
publishing
expert
seemed
exactly
backwards.
Experiences.
What
we
want
with
that
person.
E
There
is
no
formal
appeals
process
in
this
proposal.
This
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
discussed
last
time,
and
so
I
thought
it
was
important
to
say
there's
two
reasons
why
I
wrote
that
this
way.
First,
it
hurt
my
head
every
time
I
went
to
think
about
the
appeals
process.
I
went.
Who
would
you
appeal
to
on
what
basis?
E
E
It's
those
people
are
responsible
to
somebody
given
how
long
the
other
appeals
processes
take
and
how
ineffective
they
are.
If
somebody
is
messing
up
and
really
for
somebody
to
be
messing
up
on
this
board
in
a
way
that
matters
you'd
have
to
have
at
least
two
people
messing
up
for
there
to
be
reasons
to
appeal,
at
which
point
I'm
going
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
unwind
conspiracy
is
beyond
me.
C
Hang
on
just
a
moment
before
before
mark
and
eric
go
forward,
I
want
to
just
talk
about
structuring
discussion
on
this
slide
because
there's
a
lot
here.
Okay,
a
whole
lot
here
and
what
I'll
ask
is
what
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
sort
of
go
bullet
by
bullet
and
just
see.
You
know,
let's
see
if
we're
all
in
in
general
agreement
on
on
and
let's
find
out
where
we
have
issues
if
people
will
bear
with
me
on
that.
So,
let's
start
with,
I
think,
nobody's
really
disagreeing
with
this.
C
But
if
you
do
disagree
now
is
the
time
throw
up
a
hand
and
indicate
whether
you
think
that
this
is
an
incorrect,
a
an
inappropriate
statement,
okay,
so
mark,
if,
if,
if
you-
if,
if
you
disagree
with
this
point,
go
ahead
and
and
speak
otherwise,
bear
with
me
for
a
minute:
okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
all
right,
then
the
next
part
I'm
going
to
say.
I
think
we
all
are
pretty
comfortable
with
this
part
here
right.
Any
comments,
concerns
about
the
stream
heads.
C
I
I
Someone
else
has
not
muted,
that
might
be
me,
okay,
so
I
actually
agree
with
what
I'm
not
saying,
which
is
having
the
discussions
for
the
tiny
little
pieces
like
this
is
not
super
helpful,
so
I
just
want
to
surface
that.
That
may
not
be
the
most
useful
thing,
but
that
wouldn't
get
up
to
say
that,
to
recap
I
think
my
position
from
from
from
like
last
time.
I
I
think
that
the
stream
heads
have
a
form
of
democratic
legitimacy,
which
is
they
were
appointed
by
structure
and
by
you
know,
by
the
organization
as
a
whole
and
the
the
rs
rc
ppe,
whatever
it
is,
is
not,
and
so
I
so
well.
I
think
that
they're
they
have
an
important
voice,
and
I
think
we
have
structure
allows
another
voice
and
not
think
there
should
be
a
decision
making
a
loop.
I
I
H
H
Now
I
know
going
to
come
along
and
say:
go
well
they're,
not
a
member
of
the
community
they're
just
hired
people.
This
is
how
we
got
in
the
problem
in
the
first
place.
This
is
not
just
a
contractor.
This
is
a
senior
member
of
the
community
and
we
want
them
to
be.
We
want
them
to
be
there
for
quite
a
while
again
I'm
when
you
said
small
approvals
board,
I
skipped
over,
because
I
thought
I
would
get
a
chance
to
talk
about
additional
people
besides
these
five
people.
H
B
C
G
Just
that
eckhart's
point
of
point
about
pigs
and
chickens
really
really
matters
here
and
the
the
stream
heads
are
directly
responsible
for
something
that
will
be
affected
by
this.
I
don't
see
that
the
the
advisor
as
an
as
an
expert
with
opinions
has
the
same
degree
of
commitment
to
to
actually
being
responsible
for
something,
and
so,
as
I
said,
give
them
ample
opportunity
to
make
their
voice
heard,
but
saying
no
on
what.
G
F
L
Okay,
lots
of
buttons
to
click
so
yeah,
I
agree
with
you
know.
One
of
these
things
is
is
not
like
the
others.
The
the
the
mechanism
for
assuring
that
the
the
rsa
or
I
see
whatever
we
call
this
person
is
aligned
with
and
and
acting
in
a
responsible
fashion
is,
is
different
than
the
all
the
mechanisms
for
the
stream
managers,
and
so
I
I'm
somewhat
confident
that
you
know,
as
described.
L
You
know
that
a
single
person
can't
necessarily
carry
the
day
with
this.
They
have
to
convince
someone
else.
I
think
that
that's
a
reasonable
constraint,
but
I
do
think
that
this
really
highlights
that
we
need
to
consider
you
know
this
person
needs
some
freedom
of
action
and
they
need
some
comfort
that
they're
going
to
keep
in
position.
I
absolutely
agree,
but
we
also
need
to
make
sure
that
this
person
is
not
serving
the
community
well
and
is
or
or
they
go
off
the
rails.
L
K
C
Yeah,
let
me
just
interject
on
that
point
mark
that
I
think
that's
well
said
in
terms
of
not
wanting
to
have
to
go
through
this
again.
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
people
should
be
thinking
about
is
as
we
as
we
begin
to
compile
this
proposal.
C
Have
we
achieved
that
goal
and
I
don't
think
it's
any
one
particular
thing
relating
to
the
rsc
or
relating
to
you
know
the
rsoc
or
other
things,
but
people
might
have
different
views
as
to
how
you
know
how
we
got
here.
But
if
you
read
through
the
proposal,
do
you
think
you
know,
as
as
it
develops
right
as
as
as
it
gets
edited
up?
You
think
we're
meeting
that
goal.
So
thanks
for
for
raising
that.
L
M
Yes,
so
I
like
what
mark
said,
I
think
that
both
the
ability
to
override
a
single
position
and
the
understanding
of
how
a
hired
professional
might
be
constrained
by
their
employers
is
important.
M
I
also
think
it's
important
to
understand
what
the
remit
of
this
hired
professional
is,
and
possibly
this
was
something
mike
was
coming
towards,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
in
this
structure
addressed,
who
is
responsible
for
the
the
needs
of
the
the
consumers
and
contributors
to
the
rfcs
beyond
the
the
streams-
and
I
know
we
talked
about
this
before-
and
we
kind
of
pushed
it
around
a
bit,
but
we
didn't,
as
far
as
I
recall
ever
say,
who
carried
that
that
responsibility.
M
So
if,
for
example,
somebody
is
sitting
there
in
the
advisory
board
approvals
board
sorry
and
sees
that
an
action
would
be
harmful
to
a
significant
proportion
of
the
people
that
consume
the
rfcs,
but
not
specifically
harmful
to
the
streams,
then
I
don't
see
how
that
issue
gets
raised
unless
it
belongs
to
somebody-
and
perhaps
it
belongs
to
the
technical
publishing
expert,
and
perhaps
it
doesn't,
but
without
that
job
spec,
we
don't
know.
C
Yeah,
so
this
issue
has
been
raised
before
stick
with
me
for
just
a
moment,
adrian
just
to
recount
the
the
last
time
we
we
covered
this
ground.
I
believe
there
was
one
view
that
stood
out
to
me,
which
is
that
that
aspect
like
how
do
we
even
establish
accountability
to
this,
this
broader
community
that
aspect
needed
to
be
developed,
and
that
is
probably
something
that
could
be
done
by
the
the
working
group
that
gets
created
out
of
this
process.
C
This
is
what
I
heard
and
saw
from
from
from
that
discussion,
and
I
think
stephen
farrell
had
had
comments
on
that
in
particular.
C
So
one
question
I
think
we
have
to
ask-
is:
is
this
something
that
we
solve
now
or
something
that
we
solve
as
we
as
we
evolve
the
process,
and
do
you
have
thoughts
on
that?
Adrian.
M
Well
in
in
general,
and
assuming
best
will
and
good
behavior
on
all
parts
yeah
we
can.
We
can
leave
that
till
later.
There
is
a
slight
corner
case
of
well.
What
happens
if
something
bad
happens
in
the
in
the
first
few
months
before
that
piece
of
process
has
been
sorted
out.
C
Thank
you
very
much,
joel.
E
Okay,
so
just
to
touch
on
adrian's
point.
The
wording
on
the
on
the
specific,
the
first
kind
of
concern
was
specifically
written
so
that,
if
we
decide
somebody
represents
some
particular
constant
constituency
like
the
readers
or
whatever,
then
that
would
that
would
then
fall
into
the
rest
of
the
process.
So
we
could
separate
the
two
pieces
of
what
are
the
votes
and
what
are
the
representations
on
the
bigger
issue?
This
is
the
point
where
ecker
and
and
I
and
and
that
I
think
I
fear
that
this
whole
camp
is
split.
E
I
think
that
it
is
very
important
that
the
paid
professional,
the
rsa
be
a
full
voting.
Member
of
the
of
this
board,
and
one
of
one
example
of
that
was
the
idea
that
somebody
floated
in
the
chat
that
there
might
be
a
situation
where
the
rest
of
the
board
could
go
into
executive
session
without
them
separate
from
a
recusal
by
the
by
the
by
the
professional.
Obviously,
if
the
topic
is,
how
much
is
the
professional
paid
or
whether
they're
paid
they
would
recuse
but
separate
from
that
question?
E
I
just
don't
want
to
see
it
set
up
where
they
are
not
a
full
member
of
this
board
and
one
of
the
ways
you
recognize
who
are
your
full
members
or
who
gets
to
say
in
the
end,
and
I
think
it's
very
important.
They
have
as
much
of
a
say
as
anyone
else
and
that's
why
I
put
in
an
explicit
override.
While
I
prefer
to
keep
it
to
one
vote.
E
C
Thanks
joel
we'll
be
back
colin.
N
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
understanding
the
that
the
reasons
for
the
stream
heads
to
have
a
vote
here,
because
they
have
the
the
legitimacy
to
represent
that
their
streams
and
they
are
they're
clearly
concerned
with
the
overall
health
of
the
the
series.
Since,
if
this
the
series
is
not
healthy,
then
obviously
their
stream
is
not
healthy
and
it
impacts
their
stream,
and
I
understand
why
they
would
take
advice
from
a
professional
publishing
experts.
I
I'm
not
understanding
what
would
be
the
rationale
for
the
publishing
expert
to
have.
N
C
I
Yeah,
so
I
I
guess
I
I
sort
of
wanted
to
respond
to
a
point
that
was
made
earlier,
which
is
how
I
think
by
adrian.
How
did
these
points
get
raised?
I
think
adrian
asked,
and
I
think
that
that
that's
the
critical
distinction
between
I
think
my
view
and
perhaps
joel's
view,
so
I
think
it's
worth
you
know
we're
trying
to
flesh
out
a
little
bit,
which
is,
I
think
it
is
important.
I
Those
points
get
raised
and
I
think
that
you
know
we
need
a
structure
to
ensure
that
they
do
get
raised,
and
I
think
that,
like
a
reasonable
expectation
is
the
the
advisor
will
raise
will
be
responsible
for
raising
them.
I
think
the
question
fundamental
question
is:
who
has
the
final
say,
and
so
I
think
it's
important
to
think
language
meaning
has
a
between
the
ability
to
raise
points
and
the
ability
to
actually
block
the
work
going
forward.
I
And
so
it's
only
that
that
I
object
to
in
terms
of
having
the
advisor
have
a
vote.
Not
I'm
certainly
quite
comfortable
with
a
pile
of
different
mechanisms
to
ensure
that
their
points
are
raised
and
heard
as
long
as
the
as
long
as
the
communities,
the
people
responsible
for
making
ultimate
decision,
which
I
think
is
consistent
with
the
kind
of
like
kind
of
quasi
democracy.
We
run
here.
C
With
me
for
just
a
moment,
the
this
this
relates
to
the
previous
slide,
in
which
we
put
a
pin
in,
does
joel's
increasing
the
number
necessary
to
to
to
block
or
to
to
con
to
send
a
concern
back
does
does
that
help
ameliorate,
your
concerns.
I
I
I
guess,
I
think,
here's
a
here's,
a
situation
where
it's
maybe
maybe
difficult
to
distinguish
between
formal
and
and
and
practical
concerns
as
a
practical
matter.
If
you
required
two
board
members
to
to
block
you
know,
then
you
will
be
in
the
same
situations
if
you
have
a
simple
majority
with
a
current
four-person
board.
So
I
guess
maybe
that
doesn't
matter,
but
you
know
we
don't
know
that
the
board
will
be
constant
size
and
I
also
think
it
frankly
just
think
it
sends
the
wrong
message.
I
So
you
know
I
thought
about
this
a
bit
and
I'm
not
as
like
perhaps
strongly
opposed
as
I
was
to
the
proposal,
but
I
still
think
it'd
be
like
substantially
better
to
set
the
right
expectations,
which
is
that
people
who
have
equities
vote
and
people
do
not
have
equities,
should
not
vote.
So
I'm
not
ready
to
decide
on
that
proposal.
At
this
point.
H
Yeah,
I
really
wish
we
talked
about
how
large
the
body
was
first
rather
than
this
particular
rat
hole
we've
gotten
down
into,
and
I'm
actually
going
to
start
in
that
space.
H
If
the,
if
the
rsc
is
only
one
vote
on
a
board
of
five,
then
yeah,
maybe
there's
a
problem.
I
don't
know.
I
don't
actually
think
there
is
the
receives
one
vote
on
the
board
of
eight,
where
we
include
the
stream
members
and
we
and
we
bring
in
some
longer
term
members
via
the
non-com
that
doesn't
become
much
as
much
of
a
problem.
H
There's
also
the
question
we're
still
in
this,
this
mode,
that
that
is
loving
the
consensus
of
the
board
as
opposed
to
a
vote
of
the
board,
and
we
should
probably
stop
thinking
about
that
and-
and
actually
just
say,
you
know
if,
if
five
members
of
the
board
approve
the
thing
on
any
member
board
or
four
members
are
proven
on
a
seven
member
board,
it
goes
forward.
C
Near
yeah
and
ecker,
unless
you
want
to
speak
again,
maybe
take
your
hand
down.
Please.
O
Yeah,
so
I'm
I'm
really
not
sure
how
this
practical
could
work
to
put
the
rsa
or
whatever.
This
is
called
on
the
board,
because
we
will
likely
will
hire
somebody
who
is
like
not
from
our
community
yet
because
we
want
expertise
on
publishing,
which
is
not
really
what
we
have
in
this
community
and
for
a
person
who
comes
from
the
outside.
It
takes
a
while
a
year
or
two
to
actually
understand
how
our
community
works,
and
then
this
is
kind
of
getting
a
long-term
commitment
right.
O
If
we
have
somebody
there
who,
like
had
take
two
years
to
understand,
what's
going
on,
we
want
to
really
keep
that
person.
We
cannot
just
like
exchange
this
person
very
quickly,
so
with
that
sense,
with
the
idea
that
we
actually
want
to
have
outside
expertise
that
we
can
consult
and
that
we
can
be
more
flexible
than
we
have
been
and
not
putting
ourselves
into
like
this
little
corner
that
we
have
been
in.
I
don't
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
put
this
person
on
the
board
with
a
bottled
position.
C
H
H
One
of
the
things
with
respect
to
the
board
as
currently
constituted
here
is
the
iaed
appoints
three
of
the
four
members
directly
or
indirectly.
So
I
would
like
to
have
some
balance.
That's
not
iab
overrideable.
If
you
will
in
some
ways
now,
I'm
not
saying
they
will,
but
you
need
a
balance
in
that
particular
model
to
what
we've
currently
got.
I'm
not
worried
about
the
rsa.
I'm
actually
worried
about
the
the
three
guys,
the
rs
appointed
by
the
iab,
the
independent
series
guy
and
and
the
research
folks.
So.
C
Okay,
I
think
at
least
for
the
moment
everybody
has
had
their
say
on
where
we
stand
between
whether
this
person
has
a
vote
or
not.
C
C
Now
that
is
disputed,
at
least
at
some
level,
in
in
the
notion
that
the
rcaea
has
to
represent
the
readership,
and
so
that
that's
one
aspect
of
the
of
the
disagreement.
If
you
will
the
the
second
area,
where
we've
heard,
I
think
a
little
bit
of
disagreement
is
do
the
or
should
there
be
more
people
other
than
just
the
stream
heads
and
or
this
other
person
as
mike
just
spoke,
and
I
spoke
to
that
point.
C
The
third
point
that
was
raised
was:
what's
the
the
voting
process.
Should
you
know
the
discussion
of
consensus
versus
vote?
I
think
also
came
up
now
in
my
in
my
understanding
at
this
point.
These
are
basically
the
same
issues
that
have
come
up
again
and
again.
C
So
we
are,
I
think,
a
little
bit
in
a
jam
on
this
point,
and
I
think
that
brian
and
I
have
been
sort
of
chatting
in
the
background
as
to
whether
we
should
pull
on
this
issue,
assuming
one
of
us
can
figure
out
how
to
use
the
polling
tool-
and
maybe
it's
probably
a
good
idea
to
get
a
hum
along
these
lines.
C
I
have
somewhat
been
averse
to
trying
to
do
that
with
the
hope
that
we
would
find
solutions
that
people
would
be,
shall
we
say,
least
unhappy
by
so,
but
it
maybe
we
do
need
at
least
a
sense
of
the
room.
Brian,
do
you
want
to
comment
a
little
bit
on
this?
Do
you
have
thoughts.
F
Well,
I
I
I
would
like
to
see
where
we
are.
We,
we
haven't
tried
running
poles
to
see
where
we
are
and
we
may
be
all
over
the
we
may
be.
You
know:
50
50,
70,
30,
90
10,
who
knows-
and
I
think
I'd
like
to
see
where
we
are.
I
think
the
only
question
is.
Is
there
one
question?
F
Is
the
rsea
a
voting
member
of
the
board,
or
do
you
want
to
do?
Are
they
a
member
of
the
board
and
non-voting
as
separate
issues
leaving
off
the?
Are
there
more
people
on
the
board
and
how
many
votes
does
it
take
for
another
question?
I
think
this
fundamental
issue
of
do
they
vote
is.
That
is
the
thing
that
I
want
to
understand
where
the
work
group
is,
we
clearly
have
some
people
want
it
and
some
people
who
don't.
C
And
I
think
for
this
vote
brian,
I
think
we
should
probably
do
two
polls.
One
is
where
it's
you
know.
One
plus,
you
know
the
person
who
made
the
first
concern
and
then
the
you
know
along
along
with
one
other
and
then
the
second
is
what
what
joel
also
suggested,
which
is
the
person
who
made
this
concern
plus
two
others
and
to
see
if
either,
if
that
makes
a
substantial
difference
in
people's
thoughts.
So
brian,
do
you
want
to.
F
Try
and
arrange
the
poll
yeah
I've
got
I've
got
it.
Wes
wanted
to
speak.
D
P
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
running
a
poll
is
a
good
idea.
The
thing
that
I
am
concerned
with
is
that
there
seems
to
be
a
fundamental,
larger
issue
that
is
being
danced
around
with
all
the
questions
that
mike
in
particular,
has
pointed
out
right,
which
is
whether
or
not
this
particular
individual
is
on
the
board,
is
a
sub
question
to
the
larger
question.
I
don't
know
how
to
phrase,
which
is
what
is
the
balance
of
power?
P
Makeup
need
to
be
within
the
larger
structure
of
the
board
in
order
so
that
there
is
fairness
represented
across
the
board,
so
mike
you
know,
brought
up
the
concern
that
if
three
of
the
members
are
appointed
by
the
iab,
then
that
gives
the
ieb
too
much
power,
and
so
I
don't
really
know
how
to
even
phrase
the
problem
space
of
what
you
know.
What
should
the?
P
What
should
the
the
power
structure
be
so
that
nobody
has
power,
and
so
whether
or
not
this
particular
person
is
on
it,
you
know
it
that
that
question
may
be
subservient
to
a
bigger
issue.
F
It
does
seem
to
me
that
there
is,
there
are
not
that
that
the
people
who
want
the
person
to
be
a
voting
member
are
have
varying
opinions
about
how
many
you
know
how
overrideable
that
vote
is,
but
that's
the
fundamental
issue
for
them.
They've
got
to
vote
and
the
on
that,
and-
and
there
are
there
is
definitely
a
group
of
people
who
say
no.
F
They
don't
represent
a
stream
they're
hired
hand,
they
don't
get
a
vote
and
that
that's
the
fundamental
issue
and
all
the
other
issues
how
many
votes
it
takes
to
override
who
else
is
on
the
board
are,
are
are
independent
of
that
the
do
they
get
a
it
may
be
that
there
are
people
who
say
well
I'll.
Let
them
have
a
vote
if
they,
if,
if
you
know
if
they
can
be
buried
by
the
other
guys,
if
that's
true,
if
there
are
people
who
say
well,
yeah,
that's
okay.
F
F
If
we,
if
we
say
it
so
I
I
I
don't
know
if
people
want
to
speak
to
this,
I'm
still
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
a
bazillion
choices
and
that
we
get
to
the
heart
of
the
matter
as
quickly
as
as
possible.
C
And
and
just
to
add,
I
think
that
different
people
may
have
different
views
as
to
what
the
heart
of
the
matter
is
right.
So
why
don't
we
at
least
start
with
the
the
question,
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
just
phrase
this
right
is
how
many
people
are
comfortable
with
this.
C
What
if
we
just
take
this
proposal
as
it
stands,
the
you
know
the
with
the
four
with
the
four
stream
handheads
and
the
paid
professional
publishing
expert
one
is
that
where
you
want
to
start
brian.
F
P
Vote
typically
go
to
the
show
of
hands
tool
in
the
upper
right
to
be.
F
F
There's
yeah,
please
please.
We
would
really
like
to
get
a
sense
of
where
the
work
group
is.
We,
you
know
if,
if
we
really
are
50
50
ish
in
the
middle,
we
have
a
lot
more
work
to
reach
consensus.
If
it's,
if
it
really
is
a
small
number
of
people
on
one
side
and
a
very
large
number
of
people
on
the
other
side,
then
you
know
we
have
rest
consensus.
We're
trying
to
do
this,
so
I'd
appreciate
it.
If
there
are
45
participants,
17
have
have
have
expressed
an
opinion.
C
C
C
All
right
just
another
few
moments
here,
last
call
if
you,
if
you
want
to
vote
if
you
want
to
raise
your
hand
or
not
raise
your
hand,
please
do
so
now.
F
C
Okay,
that
could
be
because
they're
between
sessions.
P
I
believe
that
this
the
voting
tool
is
supposed
to
work
right
in
the
same
way
that
you
do
hums,
because
you
don't
know
if
everybody
is
going
to
vote,
you
have
to
do
the
positive
and
negative
sides
of
the
questions
as
two
separate
votes.
You
have
to
do
a
raise
your
hand
if
you
want
them
to
be
and
then
put
that
down
and
then
do
if
you
just
specifically
don't
want
them
to
be
a
voting
member
then
do
the
opposite.
F
Well,
I
I
think
martin
has
the
point
right.
We
don't
have
a
rough
consensus.
We
we
have.
We
have
a
a
significant
number
you
can
see
by
the
current
I'll
I'll
go
the
other
way
just
to
see
what
happens.
Let's,
let's
do
that,
let's,
let's
we'll
go
the
other
way,
we'll
I'll
I'll
flip
the
the
the
question
around.
C
E
L
B
B
E
C
Anybody
hasn't
voted.
Please
do
so
now.
F
F
Let's
you
know
it's,
it's
not
the
same,
but
it's
it's
close
enough.
We
we
understand
where
we
are
all
right,
I'm
going
to
end
the
session.
So
what
are
the
two?
What
are
the
two
raised
hands?
Thank
you.
F
C
I
mean
I
think
we
really
have
to
to
get
over
this
hump
and
we-
maybe
we
haven't,
been
imaginative
enough
in
in
in
our
approaches
here,
but
I
guess
what
I
I
would
ask
for
a
little
bit
of
discussion
in
terms
of
particularly,
let's
start
with
the
people
who
would
prefer
the
rsea
not
have
a
vote
for
those
people
who
voted
in
that
direction.
C
The
question
I
have
to
ask
you
is:
what
would
make
you
comfortable
what
would
make
it
at
least
acceptable
for
the
rsca
to
have
a
vote?
What,
under
what
circumstances,
would
that
be?
Okay,
or
at
least
painful,
or
at
least
at
least
undesirable,
in
terms
of
effects?
G
Right
so
the
thing
that
I
was
thinking
about
this
was
this
person
doesn't
have
any
constituency,
so
we
would
need
to
have
a
system
of
checks
and
balances
in
place.
Essentially
they
would
need
to
be
answerable
to
some
community
or
some
group
in
order
to
be
confident
that
those
votes
were
not
individually
motivated
or
any
of
the
other
sort
of
failure
modes
that
we
might
imagine,
and
as
I'm
seeing
you
continue
to
use
the
word
vote,
which
distresses
me
still.
G
I
I
think
that
the
the
reason
that
I'm
against
this
as
well
is
that
vote
means
block,
even
though
you
can't
do
it
alone.
You
have
the
power
to
to
block
approvals
which
reflect
the
consensus
of
the
community
and
that's
that's
a
whitey
responsibility.
R
J
L
L
This
is
really
weird,
so
I
I
I
agree
with
martin
that
that
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
about
what
the
constraints
on
this
person
are.
You
know
what
how
how
we
can
give
them
some
form
of
concrete
oversight
as
discussed,
and
that
would
give
me
a
lot
of
comfort
about
them
being
on
this
board.
I
think
also,
if
we
change
it
so
that
two
or
some
other
larger
than
one
number
of
participants,
the
board
are
required
to
truly
block.
L
Something
would
also
give
me
a
lot
of
comfort
about
this
person
being
on
the
board.
I
I
think
those
are
the
two
obvious
things
in
front
of
us.
I
understand
the
arguments
for
for
the
people
are
making
as
to
why
this
person
needs
to
be
aboard.
I
don't
have
a
strong
fundamental
objection
to
them
on
the
board.
I
just
think
that
we
need
to
think
through,
as
has
been
said
so
many
times,
the
pig
and
chicken
kind
of
nature
here
that
one
of
these
people
has
not
left
the
other.
L
That's
why
I
voted
no
and
I'd
happily
vote
yes
to
have
this
person
the
board.
If
we
had
those
discussions,
becker.
I
Yeah,
so
I
think
I'm
somewhere
between
martin
and
mark
they're,
probably
more
towards
martin,
namely,
I
think,
there's
a
fundamental
legitimacy
question
here.
That
makes
me
pretty
uncomfortable
with
it,
no
matter
how
the
voting
is
done,
but
certainly
I'd
be
more
comfortable
with
it.
If,
basically,
the
power
was
substantially
eluded.
What
what
I'm
most
concerned
with
is
that
the
communities
decisions
are
the
ones
that
get
enacted
and
that
someone
who's
who
is
wall?
I
Member
of
the
community,
not
a
representative
of
the
community,
does
not
get
to
stop
this
position
being
enacted,
and
so,
and
so
I
think
that
that's
the
fundamental
conservation
any
case-
and
I
think
it's
important-
distinguish
again
between
represent
representative
of
the
community,
a
member
of
the
community
and
on
the
the
stream,
the
stream
managers
or
representatives
community,
as
well
as
members
of
the
community,
whereas
the,
whereas
because
the
weight
is
selected,
the
advisor
is
only
a
member
of
the
community.
F
I
Mean
if
they
have
one
vote
and
everybody
else
is
100
I
mean
you
know-
I
I
mean
more
importantly
like
that
I
mean
my
my
point:
is
that
like
well,
I'm
trying
to
avoid
the
situation
in
which
they're
deciding
exciting
question
on
an
important
issue?
Whether
or
not
we
go
forward,
and
I
think
that's
think
that
is
not
the
key
question
that
people
are
concerned
about.
If
people
think
it's
symbolic,
then
sure,
let's
quick,
start
situation
when
someone
symbolic.
I
I
I
I
do
not
agree
with
that,
so
so
like
if
you're
planning
to
ask
them
the
same
question,
then
I'm
like
I'm
for
it,
but
if
you're,
just
if
you're,
if
what
you're
saying
is
like
we
have
more
people,
this
particular
tally
like
a
versus
b,
then
that's
just
not
the
right
way
to
proceed.
I
C
Okay,
I'm
happy
to
ask
the
question
the
other
way
around,
but
before
we
do
let's
go
to
mike
and
then
and
then
we'll
do
that.
H
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
what
ecker
was
saying
and
he
was
talking
about
one
specific
one
specific
meeting
and
I
think
the
votes
on
these
things
are
just
basically
the
votes
on
these
things
they're
going
to
they.
You
know
until
the
person
until
they
get
to
it's,
not
going
to
be
a
meeting
based
vote,
but
a
process
based
vote.
So
I
don't
know
how
that
applies,
and
I
may
have
missed
something
I
I
had
to
run
out
grab
some.
C
Water,
this
had
to
do
with
the
poll
that
we
just
took,
I
think
yeah,
and
so
let
me
let
me
turn
it
around
and
say
for
those
who
would
really
want
the
person
to
be
a
board
member,
the
the
rsa
to
be
a
board
member.
What
would
make
you
comfortable
in
that
person
not
being
a
board
member
there?
Is
there
anything
that
is
there?
Are
there?
C
C
N
C
K
Yeah,
I
I
think
this
comes
back
to
to
one
of
those
age-old
at
this
point.
Fundamental
discussions,
a
board
which
represents
only
the
streams,
is
not
representing
the
user
community
in
representing
the
broader
interests
and
stability
of
the
series.
It's
representing
the
interest
of
the
streams
and
no
matter
how
you
couch
the
responsibilities
of
those
stream
members.
K
To
that
broader
view,
it
really
doesn't
change
anything
so
having
the
rsea
be
a
member
of
the
board,
but
not
voting,
but
who
cannot
be
excluded
from
meetings,
maybe
having
a
board
which
is
larger
to
somehow
represent
the
community
better
than
maybe.
K
But
but
the
situation
where,
where
the,
where
the
streams
can
the
streams
or
or
even
just
the
three
people
appointed
by
the
iab,
can
get
together
and
say
whatever
it
is
that
the
publication's
interest
and
the
broader
community
interest
is
doesn't
count
because
we
want
it
the
way
we
want
it
within
the
ietf
community,
but
that
the
broader
reader
and
user
and
procurement
communities
doesn't
work.
K
And-
and,
as
I
say,
that's
that's
one
of
those
fundamental
arguments
which,
in
a
variety
of
different
forms,
has
has
been
going
on.
Not
only
since
this
group
was
constituted,
but
but
is
ultimately
the
source
of
the
problem
that
got
us
here.
J
I
say
very
similar
things
to
what
john
said
there,
but
also
I
mean
there's
two
things,
one
of
which
is
the
diversity
of
the
people
on
the
board
and
and
the
views
and
this
person's
going
to
be
fairly
intimately
involved
in,
what's
going
on
on
the
board
so
having
them
have
a
say,
rather
than
sit
in
meetings
and
having
no
say
most
of
the
time,
it
won't
make
much
difference
unless
we're
going
purely
consensus
decision
making
and
all
of
this
it's
going
to
be
a
case
where
they're
only
having
a
voice,
but
at
least
they
have
a
voice.
J
I
think,
being
in
this
situation
and
not
having
a
voice
at
all
would
be
much
more
difficult.
Would
I
be
happy
the
other
way
around
if
we
can
get
a
good
person
who's
happy
living
like
that?
Then
yes,
but
I
think
it's
it's
a
position
with
a
lot
of
responsibility
and
giving
that
responsibility
without
any
voice
is
going
to
be
uncomfortable
for
the
person
in
that
position,
and
I
don't
see
the
strength
of
the
argument
against
it.
Really
all.
G
N
N
C
C
One
of
the
things
while
I'm
doing
that
that
I
wanted
to
mention
was
that
the
issue
tracker
and
actually
the
home
of
the
the
of
the
program
on
github
has
changed
its
name.
It's
now
before
it's
now,
the
in
into
archboard
stroke
program
dash
rfc
dash
future.
This
happened,
though,
this
past
week
and.
C
There's
a
let's
see
here:
yeah
there's
a
redirect,
so
the
right
things
should
happen
and
I
believe
if
we
look
at
issue
number
12.
C
all
right.
Let
me.
C
G
B
C
One
thing
we
didn't
agree
on
by
the
way
was
the
name
that
that's
something
that's
not
agreed,
but
this
was
we
did
agree
on
this
some
time
ago.
C
C
So
by
my
measure
you
know
we
had
a.
We
had
one
poll.
C
C
What
what
I'm
wondering
is
assuming
that
the
rsea
is
in
fact
responsible
for
this.
This
group
of
reader
leadership
that
john
and
joel
and
adrian
and
others
have
mentioned.
C
Would
adding
some
appointments
say
from
isoc
make
a
difference
to
people,
particularly
people
who
didn't
want
the
the
person
on
the
board?
And,
let's
see
here,
I
think
miriah
you're
you're,
trying
to
get
a
word
in.
O
Yeah,
I
put
my
hand
up
when
you
still
showed
the
description
of
the
rsa
and
I
think,
like
the
underlying
assumption
I
was
making.
Was
that
like
for
this
position,
we
are
looking
for
an
external
expert
and
when
we
hire
this
person,
this
person
might
like
not
really
know
our
community.
So
at
the
point
where
we
hire
this
person
that
this
person
is
not
really
a
community
member
yet-
and
I
think
it
takes
a
while
until
this
person
can
understand-
what's
happening
in
the
community.
O
So
that's
my
assumption
and
I
believe
that
other
people,
it's
even
that
we
hire
a
person
who
already
is
a
community
member
and
knows
how
the
community
works
and
that's
a
big
difference
for
me
and
that's
not
anything
that
the
text
says.
But
I
believe
that's
like
we're
kind
of
talking
past
each
other
a
little
bit.
C
So
multiple
issues,
of
course,
on
the
table
in
area.
One
question
I
would
ask
you
is:
how
would
you
view
this
person
say
vis-a-vis,
another
board
where
you
have
external
members
come
on
to
the
board?
We
have
the
most
corporations.
Have
external
members
come
in?
How
would
you
view
that
as
different
or
the
same,
or
what
would
you
see
the
comparison
as.
O
So
I
think
we
have
on
the
lsd.
We
have
actually
people
who
are
like
coming
more
from
the
outside
just
learning
our
community,
but
you
know
there's
also
this
very
specific
expertise
and
they're,
not
kind
of
voting
on
documents,
they're,
not
kind
of
voting
on
changing
our
process,
they're
very
much
mined,
but
the
process
the
process
they
can
do
bind
on
what
community
consensus
is,
and
here
we're
having
a
body
where
you
actually
kind
of
can
block
community
consensus.
So
that's
a
huge
difference
for
me.
C
Okay
and.
O
And
I
want
to
say
one
more
thing:
the
the
reason
why
I
had
this
assumption
that
we
would
hire
somebody
who
is
kind
of
a
little
bit
on
the
outside
is
also
because
I
don't
want
us
to
get
in
this
position
again,
where
we
have
like
this
one
specific
person
which
has
like
all
the
skills
we
need,
and
then,
when
this
person
person
leaves,
for
whatever
reason,
we're
in
this
situation
again
we're
completely
lost
right.
C
Let
me
ask
a
different
question
in
response
to
that:
would
having
sort
of
a
deputy
or
or
somebody
who
might
be,
the
you
know,
a
natural
successor
on
board?
Would
that
alleviate
that
sort
of
a
concern.
O
Not
quite
sure
what
you
mean,
but,
like
I
think
it's
the
same,
I
don't
want
to
make
this
position
dependent
on
like
a
very
small
set
of
people.
I
really
want
to
have
a
bigger
set
of
people
that
we
can
fill
this
position
with.
N
Okay,
colin
yeah,
I
mean
yeah,
I
think
miriam
said
a
lot
of
things.
I
would
agree
with.
I
think,
coming
back
to
the
question
you
you.
N
Assuming
this
person
was
representing
the
community,
the
the
broader
community,
the
broader
readership
and
so
on,
but
that
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
role
which
is
in
the
github
issue.
So
we
seem
to
be
again.
We
seem
to
be
circling
around
what
what
this,
what
the
role
of
this
person
is,
and
I'm
still
not
convinced
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
about.
L
E
E
E
O
E
O
H
J
To
what
joel
just
said,
and
also
to
add
that,
often
that
the
new
voice
coming
in
from
outside
will
see
stuff
that
wasn't
necessarily
seen
by
people
who've
been
around
for
a
long
time
by
creating
a
process
where
only
someone
who's
already
an
expert
in
everything,
iotf
gets
any
say
at
all:
we're
creating
a
very
strong
echo
chamber
for
ourselves
and
we're
not
allowing
new
ideas
in
very
much,
and
I
think
that
would
also
be
a
challenge
here
that
that
we're
setting
up
saying
until
you're
already,
you
know
well
educated
in
the
ways
of
iotf
and
and
fully
brought
into
the
group,
think
we
we
can't
allow
the
voice.
C
K
Yeah,
a
strong
agreement
with
what
joel
and
bronn
have
said
already.
Let
me
add
one
more
thing
to
that
list,
which
is,
if
you're
looking
for
a
highlight
or
two
more
things,
one
of
which
is
that,
if
you're
looking
for
a
high-level
professional
for
this
position,
telling
them
when
you're
recruiting
them
that
they
don't
have
a
voice,
they
can
offer
opinions.
But
people
may
not
may
not
pay
any
attention
to
them
and
make
following
the
precedent
they
got
us
into.
This
trouble
be
able
to
lock
them
out
of
meetings
and
discussions.
K
What's
going
on
is
a
really
good
way,
not
to
be
able
to
hire
such
a
professional.
So
there's
there's
there's
an
interaction
there
with
who's
likely
to
be
interested
in
the
job
and
and
beyond
that.
K
I
want
to
reinforce
what
joel
said,
which
is
that,
if,
if
this
person
is
standing
up
and
blocking
things
which
they
don't
understand,
because
the
community,
because
they're
out
of
touch
with
the
community
and
and
don't
understand,
they're
out
of
touch
with
the
community
and
can't
be
convinced,
they're
out
of
touch
with
the
community,
that
we've
done
a
rather
rather
bad
job
of
finding
the
right
person
to
hire
and-
and
I
I
recognize
the
risks
there,
but
this
gets
back
the
question
of
whether
we
can
actually
recruit
and
hire
somebody
who's
suitable
for
this
job.
K
C
John
jeffrey.
R
The
we're
we're
hiring
the
this
advisor
editor
because
they're
an
expert
on
publishing
and
that's
likely
to
be
an
expertise
that
is
a
small
minority
in
the
working
group,
and
so
it
seems
worth
it
if
they
see
us
making
a
mistake.
R
That's
go
from
a
from
a
publishing
standpoint,
it's
worth
giving
them
that
veto
and
letting
them
kick
it
back
to
the
working
group,
especially
if
that
veto
is
overrideable
by
the
rest
of
the
board.
If
there's
consensus
against
them.
F
G
Really
only
really
got
here
to
to
address
comments
that
that
bronn
made
and
then
then
john
said
something.
So
I
think
the
the
question
of
direct
power
versus
the
ability
to
be
heard
is
getting
lost
here
and
the
straw
man
that
I
saw
erected
in
john's
response
to
that
was
was
quite
a
problematic
one.
G
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
find
is
a
way
for
this
person
to
be
a
respected
and
constructive
member
of
this
community
and
to
provide
their
expertise
in
the
in
the
the
best
possible
way
offering
their
them
a
vote
as
as
a
carrot
as
part
of
the
the
hiring
process,
I
think
is
it
putting
the
wrong
sort
of
incentive
structure
in
place.
G
I
I
think
one
of
the
the
key
things
here
is
is
making
sure
that
they
are
treated
as
a
professional
and
listen
to,
and
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
taking
a
vote.
It
doesn't
mean
that
they
have
a
seat
with
a
vote
on
the
approval
board.
It
just
means
that
they
we
have
a
system
in
place
for
them
to
be
heard
when
they
have
something
to
say,
and
I
think
ex
officio
was
one
of
the
things
that
the
people
have
floated
in
the
in
the
chat,
and
that
sounds
like
it
could
be
perfectly
reasonable.
C
All
right
so
at
two
points
before
you
go
away.
Martin,
I
just
wonder
if
you
wanted
to
respond
to
the
point
that
jeffrey
yaskin
made
in
terms
of
the
the
ex
the
ass
the
aspect
of
expertise
that
can
be
outvoted
lost
or
otherwise
shouted
down,
as
sometimes
happens
in
working
groups,
and
this
is
a
concern
that's
been
raised
by
others.
What
would
be
your
response
to
that.
G
Yeah
I've
I've
heard
this
objection
repeated
on
on
a
number
of
occasions,
and
I
I
don't
see
that
happening.
I
I
think
we've
we've
had
a
number
of
occasions
where
there
has
been
the
lone
voice
in
a
working
group
and
there
has
been
genuine
attempts
to
understand
and
reconcile
that
position.
G
I
don't
think
we're
talking
about
a
whole
bunch
of
teenagers
here,
despite
the
behavior
that
we
often
see,
and
so
I
I
don't
think
that
this
is
something
that
is
going
to
enter
into
that
position
and
if
that
person
cannot
convince
one
of
the
approval
boards
members
that
they
should
exercise
their
vote
to
to
block
and
reject
something,
then
I
think
then
that's
a
problem.
C
Okay,
wow
ron
and
then
joel.
J
Said
there,
which
is
that
they
should
be
able
to
convince
another
person,
one
of
the
stream
people
to
to
exercise
their
block
if
they
can't
convince
them
at
all,
then
they
have
the
option
of
resigning,
which
is
pretty
much
where
you're
at
at
that
point.
If
you
feel
really
strongly
about
something,
and
you
can't
convince
any
of
the
stream
managers,
then
then
you
would
resign,
but
that
would
be
the
case
whether
you
had
a
vote
or
not.
So
I
don't
see
they're
having
the
vote.
J
Making
much
difference
either
way
in
all
of
this,
and
so
it
comes
back
to
is
having
the
vote,
a
sign
of
respect
that
will
make
the
position
easier
to
to
get
people
for
or
not,
and
that
I
think,
is
a
major
area
of
disagreement
in
the
working
group.
E
The
way
I
proposed
this
that
any
member
had
to
be
able
to
propose
it
had
to
be
able
to
persuade
at
least
one
other
member
to
support
them
to
get
their
view
sustained.
That
seemed
like
the
right
balance
for
all
of
the
streams.
If
one
stream
is
saying
for
all
of
the
participants,
because
if
one
stream
is
saying
this
hurts
my
stream
and
everybody
else
looks
at
them
and
goes,
but
I
don't
think
it
does,
then
they
probably
are
wrong
and
they
just
keep
and
we
go
forward.
E
I
think
we're
better
off
with
two,
because
if
you
can
get
two
people
saying
wait.
No,
this
is
big
enough
that
it
matters.
Then
it
probably
matters
and
making
the
rsa
one
of
those
people
make
sure
that
there's
a
voice
that
is
not
focused
principally
on
a
single
stream,
but
on
the
series
as
a
whole
participating
as
a
full
equal
member
of
the
discussion.
And,
yes,
we
can
say
they
must
be
respected,
but
lots
and
lots
of
history
shows
us
that
it's
not
the
same
thing.
E
C
Yeah-
and
that
raises
a
point
that
I
caused
some
confusion
on
a
while
ago,
x,
officio
just
means
one
sits
on
the
board
based
on
one's
position.
It
doesn't,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
anything
else,
and
somebody
else
said
everybody
on
that
board
at
the
moment
is
ex-officio
in
terms
of
how
it's
defined,
I
think
we're
up
to
pete
on
this
point
good
morning,
t.
Q
Can't
hear
you
pete
lots
of
buttons
to
push
in
my
browser,
to
give
it
permission,
so
I
I
think
you
know
looking
at
the
jabber
chat.
I
I
agree
with
joel
that
the
you
know
it
still
requires
the
r-s-e-a-a-e
whatever
to
find
one
other
person
to
agree
with,
and
what
martin
has
said
in
the
jabber
chat
is
well,
but
that's
enough
to
delay
the
process.
Q
Delaying
the
process
doesn't
bother
me
that
much
in
this
case,
if
the
rsa
feels
strongly
that
this
is
a
problem,
and
the
expectation
is
that
everybody
on
this
board
is
going
to
be
given
the
message
that
your
expectation
is
you're,
doing
what
is
best
for
the
community
here
and
that
the
community
is
going
to
eventually
agree
to
then
the
rsa
throwing
up
a
hand
and
saying
whoa.
I
think
this
really
does
need
to
stop.
Q
I
think
the
the
problem
attack
surface
here
is
pretty
minimal
right.
I
I
see
absolutely
no
reason
that
this
person
shouldn't
have
a
say
in
stopping
a
document
that
they
think
is
really
a
problem
and
coming
back
around
and
finding
one
other
person
to
support
them,
and
the
delay
is
worth
it
at
that
point.
Q
We're
talking
about
someone
who,
eventually
the
community
can
say
to
the
llc
fire,
this
person
they're
an
idiot
if
that
comes
down
to
it.
So
the
community
does
have
a
push
back
point
if
the
person
is
really
out
of
control
in
the
same
way
that
we
have
a
pushback
point
with
all
of
the
other
stream
head
appointees.
C
D
Yeah
sure
just
give
me
a
try,
put
me
in
charge
of
everything
yeah,
so
I'm
more
worried
about
the
ietf
and
its
participants
behaving
badly
to
the
paid
professionals.
Then
the
paid
professionals
doing
something
wrong.
That
will
hurt
the
ietf
and
so
optimize
the
common
case.
D
As
they
say,
we
have
plenty
of
experience
with
like
people
behaving
badly
and
causing
competent
people
to
get
frustrated
and
leave
not
just
paid
professionals
and
otherwise,
as
pete
just
said,
we
have
a
way
we
can
influence
or
moderate
behavior
if
the
paid
professional
goes
off
the
rails,
but
I'm
not
worried
about
that
happening.
Thanks.
S
Rich
phil
good
morning,
good
morning
to
you.
Yes,
yes,.
T
So
yeah,
oh
well,
rich,
said
half
of
what
I
was
going
to
say.
I
agree
that
the
problem
is
probably
the
opposite
way
around,
but
the
other
thing
is
that
hey
look.
If
the
itf
was
a
representative
organization
in
which
we
actually
voted
for
anybody,
then
we
would
have
representatives
and
the
iab
and
iasg
would
be
answerable
to
the
community
they're.
Not
there
are
no
representatives
in
iatf.
I
don't
get
to
vote
for
anybody,
so
the
idea
that
I've
got
to
get
really
worried
about
the
rsa,
not
getting
not
being
part
of
a
community.
T
Yet
getting
a
vote
I
mean,
like
I
just
don't
see
the
distinction
between
having
the
llc
iasg
or
whoever
appointing
somebody
and
them
getting
a
vote
and
non-com
appointing
somebody
and
them
getting
a
vote.
They're
both
completely
opaque
non-representative
bodies.
You've
chosen
a
model
which
is
non-representative
so
just
take
that
out
of
the
equation.
If
we
want
to
talk
about
representative
structures
in
itf,
this
is
not
where
I
would
start
fasting.
C
All
right
mark
and
then
I
have
a
question
after
you
speak.
Okay,
so
please
go
ahead.
L
L
I
don't
agree
with
the
assertion
that
all
the
llc
can
just
go
and
get
rid
of
this
person
or
or
discipline
them.
If
a
problem
arises,
that's
how
we
got
here
all
right.
The
this
is
an
emotional
position
for
a
lot
of
people,
for
whatever
reason
the
power
relationships
are.
Indistinct
and
the
llc
has
a
a
very
qualified
role
in
how
governance
happens
here
and
so
saying.
Oh,
the
llc
can
take
care
of
this.
I
I
don't
buy
it.
C
But
but
I'd
like
you
to
take
a
shot
at
it
first,
which
is:
how
does
the
performance
of
this
person
get
evaluated
and
who
does
the
evaluation.
L
That
that
is
one
of
the
key
questions
that
we
need
to
be
asking
in
this
effort.
You
know
to
to
all
the
discussion
about
whether
this
person's
on
the
board
or
not
I'll,
reiterate
what
I
think
I've
said
in
chat
and
maybe
online
before,
which
is.
I
am
fine.
L
As
long
as
this
person's
you
know,
vote
or
or
blocking
can
be
overcome,
I'd
be
more
comfortable
with
two
other
people,
rather
than
just
one
other
person,
but
you
know
we'll
see
how
it
goes,
but
the
the
question
is
asked
is
really
fundamental
here
that
you
know
people
are
saying
that
the
llc's
governance
of
this
person
is
equivalent
to
the
stream
managers,
and
it's
it's
very
obviously
not
so
what
kind
of
governance
and
oversight
of
this
person
are
we
talking
about
and
in
in
a
good
solution?
L
I
think
this
person
will
have
confidence
in
their
position
if
they're
doing
a
good
job
and
they're
competent,
they're
professional.
But
if
they're
not,
then
we
need
some
way
to
make
sure
that
we're
getting
what
we're
paying
for
and
the
advice
that
we
you
know.
Many
people
are
asserting
that
we
need,
and
so
how
the
community
comes
to
a
decision
about
that
is
tricky
and
that's
what
we
should
be
talking
about,
because,
as
we've
seen,
it
can
be
really
controversial.
C
I
think
that
was
a
great
elaboration
of
my
question.
I
wonder:
if
do
you
have
thoughts
as
to
how
that
would
play
out?
Let
me
let
me
throw
up
a
straw
man
as
an
example
right.
You
could
imagine
jay,
for
instance,
putting
out
a
poll
to
the
community
saying.
C
Can
you
please
provide
in
confidence
your
view
and
you
being
any
member
of
the
community
of
the
performance
of
the
rsc
and
please
be
specific,
based
on
the
responsibilities
that
the
rsc
has
would
and
and
then
jay
making
the
decision
or
the
llc
making
the
decision?
That's
just
a
straw
man
and
I
don't
mean
for
it
to
you
know
it
matters
the
least
amount
coming
from
the
chair.
How
you
know
the
community
can
come
up
with
whatever
they
want
on
this,
but
what
it?
What
would
be
your
view.
L
Sorry,
that's
me,
I
think
that
would
be
fine,
but
I
suspect,
based
on
what
we've
seen
that
no
matter
what
happens,
parts
of
the
community
would
not
accept
that
decision
and
it
would
put
a
tremendous
amount
of
pressure
on
the
llc
and,
if
I
were
on
the
llc,
I
would
not
want
that
coming
at
me,
joel.
E
If
we
have
an
rsa
and
they
have
established
that
they
know
how
to
do
the
job
and
they
have
established
that
they
are
doing
a
good
job
and
they
have
been
reappointed
multiple
times
and
then
for
reasons
the
community
can't
understand
the
llc
suddenly
had
fired
them.
That
would
indeed
cause
much
the
same
ruckus
that
we
had.
E
In
contrast,
if
we
have
a
new
rsa
who
maybe
has
been
in
there
a
year
or
two
hasn't
shown
much
of
any
real
understanding
in
the
and
the
llc
or
the
executive
director
says,
based
on
the
feedback
from
the
community,
this
person
is
not
working.
We're
gonna
have
to
do
a
new
search.
C
Yeah,
okay,
so
all
right,
I
think
everybody
has
had
a
pretty
big
say
on
this
mark.
We'll
give
you
the
last
word
and
then
I'm
gonna,
let
let's
close
the
microphones
on
this,
because
we
we're
gonna
run
out
of
time.
Thank
you.
L
I
I
don't
disagree
on
any
particular
point
with
joel
there.
I
would
just
I
I
think
that
it
maybe
there
is
no
better
solution,
but
I
would
ask
that
we
craft
in
great
detail
the
expectations
for
how
this
person
is
their
you
know.
Contract
is
renewed
and
how
the
community
is
consulted
and
so
forth,
and
so
on.
L
So
there's
no
disagreement
about
what's
happening,
because
I
think
that
was
the
nexus
of
what
happened
before
and
and
if
we
want
this
to
be
a
smooth
process,
unlike
every
other
case
in
the
ietf,
we
need
to
write
it
down.
Well,
we
were
really
bad
at
that.
So,
let's,
let's
try
and
do
a
better
job
here.
C
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I
hope
this
will
come
as
no
shock
to
you
mark,
but
whatever
we
say,
we
need
to
write
it
down
better.
The
the
chair
in
me
says:
oh
good,
I'm
hearing
a
potential
volunteer
to
help
propose
some
of
that
text.
So
look
for
an
email
on
that
from
me
real
soon.
Now,
okay,
we
have
spent
a
well
over
an
hour
close
to
an
hour
and
a
half
talking
about
this
slide.
C
First
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
joel
for
putting
this
together.
We
are
not
yet
at
consensus.
I
think
people
have
heard
each
other
on
this
point.
I
don't
believe
there's
a
lot
of
talking
past
each
other.
At
this
point.
To
be
honest,
I
think
everybody
knows
everybody
else's
position.
C
C
I
think
we've
heard
some
of
them
say
that
they
would
be
a
little
somewhat
comfortable
if
there
were
blocking
points
on
there
would
be
overrides
available,
particularly
you
know
two
additional
chair
over
override
votes
from
the
board
in
order
to
sustain
that
person's
view-
and
I
think
we
heard
just
in
this
last
part
of
the
conversation
that
at
least
one
participant
would
be
much
more
comfortable,
and
I
think
others
too,
if
they
understood
better
the
accountability
of
the
rsea.
C
My
proposal
is
that
we
run
in
that
general
direction
that
what
we,
what
what
has
to
happen,
are
two
things.
C
First,
the
proposal
that
joel
has
has
to
be
encoded
a
little
bit
more
with
that
two
overrides.
C
Second,
we
need
to
clarify
the
accountability
of
the
rsea
in
terms
of
how
that
who
that
person
is
responsible
to
and
how
that
person
will
be
judged
and
that
this
would
be
a
a
whole.
You
knows
compromise
for
most
for
most
the
people
who,
at
least
for
some
of
the
people
who
did
not
prefer
the
paid
professional
person,
have
a
seat
on
the
board.
It
would
be,
there
would
probably
be
a
couple
of
people
in
the
rough.
C
What
I
propose
is
that
we
get
that
this
written
down,
and
then
we
take
a
consensus,
call
on
it
and
see
how
rough
the
consensus
is.
This
is
my
proposal
before
I
ask
for
comments
from
the
rest
of
the
room.
I
just
want
to
ask
for
comments
from
my
co-chair,
who
I'm
sort
of
popping
this
on
as
well,
because
you
know
we
didn't
know
which
way
the
conversation
would
go
so
brian.
Do
you
want
to
add,
or
you
feel
free
to
be
the
first
person
to
disagree
with
me.
J
F
We're
going
to
be
in
the
rough
rough
consensus
side
on
any
of
the
major
issues
that
we
have.
F
And
so
I'm
I'm
okay
trying
to
see
how
that
goes.
We
have
tried
many
things
that
didn't
work
and
so
trying
something
else
is
a
fine
thing
to
do.
Let's
try
it
yeah
rough
rough,
that's
that's
what
it
is
I'll
get.
My
dog
right
now
so
sure
go
ahead.
Okay,.
C
Let's
try
it
we'll
we'll
proceed
along
the
well
first,
let
me
ask
for
any
comments
from
the
from
the
group,
because
before
we
proceed,
if,
if
there's
a
real,
you
know
fury
in
that
approach,
you
know
based
on
you
know,
you
guys
know
the
way
things
have
worked
in
the
past.
We've
had
difficult
conversations
in
the
past.
You
know
that
we've
been
on
these
points
for
a
long
time.
C
So
if
you
have
a
real
agita
over
what
I'm
proposing
you'll
have
the
opportunity
again
to
to
object
to
whatever
comes
out.
C
If,
if
you
have
strong
concerns
about
this
proposal,
please
say
so
now
and
of
course
everything
we
talk
about
here
and
everything
we
we
agree
on
here
has
to
be
confirmed
on
mailing
list
as
well,
because
we
know
that
there
are
people
who
are
not
able
to
participate
at
this.
C
C
Okay,
either
people
are
fumbling
for
the
the
button
to
ask
for
for
comment
or
we're
going
to
proceed
on
those
long
along
those
lines
and
as
we
get
to
the
next
point,
what
I
want
to
do
is
also
just
note.
C
The
issue
that
mike
raised
is
something
I
want
to
query
separately
and
we'll
take
that
into
onto
the
list,
which
is
how
are
are
people
concerned
about
the
weighting
of
the
iab
in
this
process,
in
terms
of,
if,
if
selecting
the
three
of
the
four
stream
managers
and
et
cetera
and
mike
go,
you
wanna,
take
the
the
flaw
on
that
point
or
on
another
point
I
just
don't
wanna
lose
track
of
that
issue,
and
I
I
wanna
make
sure
we
recover
it.
I
don't.
H
C
And
then
I
have
one
additional
question
relating
to
that,
which
is:
does
that
possibility
of
a
proposal
in
terms
of
does
that
impact
people's
view
on
the
other
conversation
right
in
terms
of
whether
the
the
rca
ea
has
a
vote?
If
you
haven't
spoken
on
that
point
in
particular,
and
you
think
it's
something
that
that
that
impacts.
Your
point
of
view
do
please
comment.
Mark.
L
Discuss
this
a
bit
in
jabra
to
me,
it
just
muddies
the
waters.
I
I'm
concerned
with
reconstituting
our
sock
effectively
there.
I
I
would
like
this,
this
advisory
board
to
be
as
lightweight
as
possible
and
that
the
real
work
happens
in
the
working
group
and
and
and
to
me
finding
people
are
willing
to
put
their
hands
up
to
to
be
on
that
advisory
board
and
and
not
as
part
of
another
role,
but
on
their.
O
O
L
F
C
F
C
And
let
me
just
have
I
don't
we
don't
really
have
time
for
a
full-scale
conversation
on
the
merits
of
the
proposal,
just
in
the
context
of
the
I
just
want
to
understand,
if
there's
an
interaction
there
that
we
need
to
be
aware
of
that
that
that
was.
That
was
my.
My
only
concern.
C
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
requests
for
the
floor,
so
we're
going
to
proceed
along
those
lines
as
as
I
as
I
proposed
I,
I
may
call
upon
joel
to
help
me
on
this
and
along
with
one
other
person,
and
let
me
just
switch
slide
decks
now,
joel
we're
gonna.
We
have.
We
have
to
conclude
your
your
deck.
I
know
you
didn't
quite
get
to
the
finish
part
on
this,
but
obviously
the
the
previous.
The
next
slide
was
open
issues.
C
C
So
well,
we
didn't
get
to
these
guys
yet
surprise.
Okay,
let's
see
here
all
right
oops.
So
this
is
our
next
point.
C
C
I
want
to
just
go
over
sort
of
the
general
approach
that
we're
asking
peter
to
take,
the
first
of
which
is
something
that
the
working
group
raised
and
we're
responding
to,
which
is
that
you
know
in
terms
of
normative
language
things
that
are
that
really
guide
the
the
the
role,
the
the
the
the
a
b,
the
working
group
process.
All
of
that,
especially
with
big
ticket
items
right.
C
All
of
that
has
to
be
run
through
the
group
in
advance,
nobody's
going
to
be
advantaged
by
there
being
text
that
they
didn't
have
to
fight
against,
because
that
the
working
group
didn't
discuss
right.
This
is
something
that
multiple
people
raised
as
being
a
concern
in
terms
of
adopting
earlier
work.
So
that's
the
general
approach
that
we'll
take
now
that
doesn't
mean
that
the
editor
won't
actually
edit
right.
Some
of
the
sometimes
when
we
write
this
stuff
down
and
the
way
we
write
it
down
it.
C
It
sounds
like
vogue
on
poetry
to
borrow
it
an
expression
from
a
bygone
era.
Nobody
can
actually
read
it
and
people
who
read
it
can't
stand
it,
and
so
it
will
be
peter's
job
to
make
sure
not
only
that
the
consensus
is
adhered
to,
but
the
really
tough
job
is
that
somebody
who's
reading.
This
document
will
actually
understand
what
we
meant,
and
so
of
course,
as
he
smooths
that
language
you
know
he
shouldn't
be
changing
the
meaning
and
he'll.
You
know
he's
an
excellent
one
of
the
nice
things
about
peter
he's.
C
Is
that
he's
a
phenomenal
master
of
the
english
language
and
I'm
sure
he's
he's
very
capable
in
those
regards,
so
you
know
he'll
be
bringing
this
stuff
back
to
us
and,
of
course
people
will
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
what
he's
concerned
with
the
and
so
again,
please
take
a
moment
to
thank
peter.
Give
him
your
sympathies,
and
I
also
want
to
thank.
There
were
a
couple
of
other
volunteers.
I
won't
name
them
here,
but
those
who
did
volunteer.
I
wanted
to
thank
them.
C
C
We've
asked
peter
to
come
in
with
at
least
an
early
draft
at
our
next
interim
meeting
just
prior
to
our
next
new
meeting,
hopefully
which
with
stuff
with
which
we
have
agreed,
and
we
have
agreed
on
a
fair
amount
now,
just
because
we've
agreed
on
text
right
once
it
hits
the
draft
that
people
see
concerns
and
text.
C
Of
course
you
should
raise
them
right
and
we
would
like
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
people
are
comfortable
with
the
language
as
it
reads
as
as
the
draft
progresses,
but
we're
now
at
the
point
where
you
know
you
have
some
amount
of
agreement
on
some
number
of
points.
We
have
a
big
issue
to
to
still
try
and
work
through
and
we're
going
to
try
and
work
through
that
and
but
hopefully,
by
the
april
meeting,
you
will
be
able
to
see
some
text
to
which
you
can
say
yep.
C
That's
what
we
said
that
looks
good
to
me.
People
will
take
care
of
some
boilerplate,
maybe
some
of
the
mostly
you
know
the
stuff
that
we
we'd
expect
in
an
introduction.
Things
like
that.
C
Next,
one
last
slide:
our
next
meeting
will
be
on
the
6th
of
april
at
8pm
gmt
200
200
hours
gmt.
C
This
is
the
same
time
that
we've
mostly
been
holding
to
from
the
northern
hemisphere
perspective
over
the
last
few
meetings,
we're
roughly
speaking,
however,
as
we
head
into
summer
time
in
the
north
and
winter
time
in
the
south,
the
inconvenience
rises,
and
so
we
have
to
work
out
when
the
meeting
after
the
april
moon
will
occur,
and
I
will
put
out
a
doodle
poll
sometime
soon
for
that.
But
please
feel
free
to
share
your
views
both
on
list
into
the
chairs
as
to
how
you
think
that
should
proceed.
C
Any
comments
on
this
before
or
on
the
on
peter's
selection.
Before
we
conclude
to
with
any
other
business.
C
C
Agenda
all
right
not
seeing
any
requests
for
the
floor.
What
I
would
like
to
do
fur
before
we
close,
is
first
thank
very
much
dominique
for
having
taken
notes.
We
really
appreciate
that
we'll
get
draft
minutes
out
real
soon
now
and
before
we
conclude
brian,
do
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
add.
F
F
It's
very
clear
that
we
don't
have
a
rough
consensus,
yet
even
a
rough
rough
consensus,
and
that
means
some
people
are
going
to
have
to
change
their
minds
in
order
for
us
to
get
get
somewhere.
I
don't
mean
change
their
minds.
Come
come
to
some
kind
of
compromise
and
you
might
be
thinking
about
what
it
is
that
you
could
do,
because
some
of
these
issues
have
been
hanging
on
for
a
really
long
time
and
we're
going
to
have
to
power
through
them
one
way
or
another.
F
So
we've
talked
a
lot
to
each
other
about
what
we
think
and
we
clearly
have
a
couple
of
issues
for
which
we're
going
to
have
to
come
up
with
some
compromise.
Now
we
did
right.
I
mean
this.
The
whole
av
plus
work
group
was
a
major
compromise
and
there
have
been
a
few
others,
but
some
of
these
issues
now
are
going
to
require
compromise,
and
I
need
everyone
to
be
thinking
about
where
they
can
compromise
in
order
to
make
some
progress.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
Lawrence
has
asked
the
question
if
I
can
say
something
about
timelines
so
lars.
I
can
only
say
this
we're
going
to
start
to
have
a
rough
draft
out.
In
fact,
I'll
put
a
milestone
in
the
in
the
tracker
for
the
first
cut
draft
of
what
we've
agreed
in
april.
C
The
my
intent
is
to
work
with
brian
and
joel
and
peter
on
some
text
that
we
can
shape
to
put
forward
for
a
sort
of
a
compromise
approach.
What
might
what
I'm
my
thinking
is?
We'll
have
a
discussion
about
that
text.
Maybe
take
some
amendments
based
on
that
discussion
and
we'll
have
a
then
have
a
call
for
a
rough
consensus.
Now
if
the
discussion
is
very
productive
or
we
see
issues
that
really
come
out
of
it
that
we
haven't
raised
previously,
it
could
that
could
last
beyond
the
april
meeting.
C
C
Just
to
reiterate
the
points
that
brian
made,
it's
really
important
that
people
communicate
with
each
other,
not
necessarily
not
necessarily
through
the
chairs
or
or
even
in
even
if
you
feel
more
comfortable,
just
go
bilaterally
to
try
and
find
some
some
opportunity
for
to
make
sure
that
the
the
points
that
you
most
care
about
are
all
covered
and
we
will
attempt
to
to
to
find
you
know
a
way
forward
where
the
consensus
is
less
rough,
if
at
all
possible.
C
By
doing
that,
so
that's
the
best
I
can
answer
on
on
the
short
term
timeline.
If
we
are
actually
able
to
get
through
that
process,
then
I
think
we
can
begin
to
build
some
momentum
to
start
nail
down
the
other
issues
and
maybe
by
the
next
ietf
meeting.
We'll
have
one
draft
that
at
least
looks
promising
to
the
group.
But
there
that's
a
big
if,
let's
recognize
that
it
will
very
much
depend
on
the
community's
willingness
to
let
the
the
work
go
forward.
C
O
Yeah,
I
just
want
to
add
on
this
that
there
are
certain
time
constraints.
I
I
believe
everybody
knows
that,
but
we
have
an
interim,
rcc
or
manager
which
we
have
appointed
for
one
year
and
this
year
is
nearing
the
end,
so
we're
already
at
the
point
where
we
have
to
make
new
decisions
about
how
to
how
to
extend
the
situation
or
how
to
handle
the
situation
right.
So
there
are
time
constraints
here
and
it's
hard
to
make
any
decisions
hard
to
plan.
O
C
Okay,
you've
gotten
the
last
word.
We
are
over
time.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
your
constructive
engagement
for
your
good
comments,
your
good
back
and
forth.
I
I
wish
things
have
gotten,
could
have
gotten
a
little
further
in
terms
of
the
consensus
view,
but
you
know,
as
as
one
of
our
friends
likes
to
say,
if
wishing
were
ponies,
beggars
would
ride
so
wishes
were
pony
beggars
that
if
wishes
were
ponies,
bigger
beggars
would
ride.
C
I
couldn't
get
it
out
of
my
mouth
even
anyway.
I
wish
you
a
very
successful
rest
of
your
ietf
with
more
consensus
and
highly
technical
content
that
progresses
and
have.