Difference between revisions of "2019 Retreat"
|Line 83:||Line 83:|
| Wes || Tuesday 5/14 05:20 || Saturday 16:55 ||
| Wes || Tuesday 5/14 05:20 || Saturday 16:55 ||
Revision as of 14:35, 10 April 2019
Dates and Location
Dates: 16-17 May
Proposed IAB Topics
IAB lore for newbies (Stephen)
IAB elders tell newbies how it all really works:-)
- IAB statement internal processes
- IAB RFCs internal processes
- Appointment processes
- Stuff I don't know gets done...
Moar IAB Open-ness, what's been done and what's to come (Stephen)
General discussion bringing new members up to speed on past discussions and maybe agreeing overall goals/direction. (This'd be better lead by someone who knows what's been done and discussed already but I'd like to suggest the topic so am willing to try lead the discussion badly if needed:-)
Similar: Continuing IAB Visibility Issues (Wes)
Many people fail to see what the IAB does, regardless of its web page, announcements at plenaries, etc. What can we do to increase the visibility of the IAB? or maybe it doesn't need increasing?
Programs open-ness (Stephen)
Some relatively modest suggestions:
- The program descriptions on iab.org are varyingly out of date so updating those'd be good
- I'm not sure why it wouldn't be ok for all of them to publish minutes (RSOC does, others don't seem to)
- Some programs (e.g. privsec, stackevo) could perhaps work as well or better with an open mailing list where interested non-members could participate in discussion
- The plenary program might benefit from an open mailing list where potential topics are discussed and where feedback can be posted publicly (speaker selection chatter would obviously need to be on a different list).
- I'm not sure about the IANA and liaison oversight programs but I'd like to ask the question whether there're any easy things that could be done that'd be useful and more open.
Deconstructing the Human Rights
We had a couple of frustrating experiences with the "Human Right Reviews" last year. My personal analysis (Christian's) is that the reviews are attacking too many themes at the same time. Some of that is redundant with existing reviews -- privacy for example is already tackled as part of the security directorate's reviews. But there are other themes that would merit some higher exposure, such as:
- Censorship. Should the IETF protocols facilitate censorship, because of children, parental controls, enterprise networks, pedophiles and terrorists? Or should we work on tools that make censorship much harder, just like we did with encryption? Is that the same debate as "moar encryption"? How to we get to consensual position in the IETF about that?
- Access in under-privileged areas. There are many IETF efforts on making the fast Internet even faster, especially in the transport area. Are we disenfranchising the denizens of remote places with poor connectivity? Same questions about how to get consensus, etc.
- Accessibility. Are our protocols hard to use by people with disabilities? What about our standard process?
I think that establishing priorities there would be useful. Even more useful would be a process to establish such priorities.
[Note: this is likely to be overtaken by events before the retreat, as well]
We adopted draft-iab-protocol-maintenance, what does this need for publication?
Scope of IAB Responsibility
The IAB has a diverse set of responsibilities. Some of those functions are critical to the function of the overall organization (appointments, appeals, liaison, what have you), some less so. Is there any way in which the responsibilities could be reduced?
The job of RSE oversight has been divested to the RSOC: is that still appropriate?
The planning for plenaries has been less successful of late.
The technical aspects of the IAB are less well-defined and seem largely based on whatever the IAB is currently preoccupied with. What work the IAB has published could easily be the product of those few dedicated individuals who contribute. The convening of workshops, which is an extension of mix of aspects of the IAB from liaison to new-work shepherding, could be done in several other ways with the same sort of effect. The shepherding of new work into the IETF could be supported by a directorate-like structure just as effectively. The statements and pronouncements that the IAB makes would be more respectable coming from the IETF. Are these all functions that serve a purpose? Or is that purpose simply to make the role more attractive to a particular kind of person?
Proposal: Stop organizing technical plenaries (Alissa)
This function of the IAB hasn't been successful for quite some time. Let's discuss not doing it anymore.
I added this awhile back but it may have been overtaken by events.
RSE Role and RSOC
Check-in on the program.
Arrivals and Departures
|Wes||Tuesday 5/14 05:20||Saturday 16:55||Stephen||Wed 15th 1440 @ KEF||Sat 18th 1030 from KEF|