Virtual IESG Retreat for 2020


June 2 and June 4 at 14:00 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST)




We reject kings, presidents, and voting, and believe in rough consensus and running code.

Provide much-needed time together - the informal parts are often the most important ones, if we can make them happen virtually.

Looking at topics that are either inward-looking (training, process), organisational, Internet governance related, or technical.


Tuesday, June 2, 2020

14:00 UTC - 17:00 UTC

14:00 Tips and tricks for ADs new and old
14:40 Document authors (Alvaro -
15:00 Strategic planning (Alvaro, Martin)
16:00 Break
16:15 Lightning talks (5 minutes each)

  • Magnus: Impact of the golden age of Board Games
  • Mirja: Diving
  • Rob: TBD
  • Martin D: Public Transit Planning & Advocacy

Thursday, June 4, 2020

14:00 UTC - 17:00 UTC

14:00 BoF submission process and the two-BoF limit (Alissa, Barry)
14:45 Fee waiver process (Alissa)
15:00 Errata processing (Alvaro -
15:10 Virtual humming (Martin)
15:50 Break
16:00 Consensus is not unanimous approval (Éric V - )
16:20 Tips and tricks, part 2
16:40 Lightning talks (5 minutes each)


Please list your topics here and when the time gets closer we'll organize the agenda and figure out times for calls.

  • Tips and tricks for ADs new and old (Alissa, 45 minutes): We often have a session where new ADs can ask questions and returning ADs can share useful advice, workflow hacks, or whatever else they think might be helpful to fellow ADs. We could do this virtually.
  • Hobby/personal interest lightning talks (Alissa, two 30-minute sessions): We will miss the informal socializing that we normally do face-to-face, but perhaps we can get a bit of the flavor for it. The rules for hobby lightning talks are: (1) they are limited to 5 minutes maximum, (2) they can be on any topic that is not related to the IETF or the networking industry. The idea is for the group to get a flavor of something that interests you, engages you, or makes you happy that is not work-related. (My team at Cisco is spread across the globe and does a variation of this, and it's proved to be a nice addition to the team dynamic). Participation would be optional.
  • Formalizing the BOF submission process (Alissa, 30 minutes): Questions come up year after year about having the BOF submission process be more formal than using the wiki page. Should we establish a more formal process? Should we do more to support virtual BOFs?
  • Going along with the BoF submission item: Should we rethink the "two BoF limit" as a specific thing, as opposed to just applying judgment and giving heavier scrutiny to BoF requests that appear to have "too many tries"? (Barry, 20 minutes) Discussion: It's been said that it's too hard to bring work to the IETF, and one way that we can deal with that is to make it easier for people to get a BoF scheduled. Two problems with that are our scrutiny of BoF requests and the idea that proponents don't want to "burn" one of their BoF attempts too soon. We could deal with that by being more lenient about allowing people to get a BoF to introduce something and explore interest in working on it, and being more critical of BoF requests that appear to be third or fourth attempts, but, ultimately, getting on the side of "do the right thing" rather than having people think that they get two tries and no more.
  • Consensus is not unanimous approval (Éric V, 20 minutes) Even with RFC 7282, some WG are aiming to satisfy all review requests up to the point of either blocking a document or watering it down to something useless. Virtual IETF meetings do not help of course to seize whether it is a vocal minority. How can we proceed ?
  • Document Authors (Alvaro, 20 min): In the past we've discussed about the number of authors in the front page -- this time I want to also talk about *who* is appropriate to list in a document. Objective: get to a place where we can provide guidance.
  • rfc2119 MUST be used. (Alvaro, 20 min) Some Standards Track documents don't use rfc2119 language to specify behavior, which can result in multiple valid interpretations of the same text -- rfc8200 is a great example.

Action Items

Action Item: Alvaro and Martin V. to draft text on guidance regarding the number of document authors on documents.

Action Item: Alvaro, Rob, and Alissa to draft text on the framework for a long-term future plan for the IETF.

Action Item: Roman to draft text for a request to the Tools Team to move BoF requests from the BoF Wiki to the Datatracker.

Action Item: Barry to draft a proposal regarding moving the deadline for BoF Proposals for IETF 109 earlier (more than two weeks before the BoF Coordination Call).

Action Item: Alvaro, Warren, and Barry to draft clarifying text on Errata Best Practices.

Last modified 2 months ago Last modified on 04/06/20 16:11:52

Attachments (17)