Subject: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:00:01 -0500

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dale R. Worley <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> That attendance showed me that most of the IETF meeting was a
>> waste of time, that it was e-mail that was the main vehicle for work,
>> and I think that the IETF web site has it about right when it says
>
> This is all true.  Any decision come to during a meeting session must
> be reviewed and approved on the WG mailing list.  The reason for this
> is to ensure that one can participate completely *without* attending
> the meetings and paying the associated expenses.

This brings up a question that I have as an AD:

A number of times since I started in this position in March, documents
have come to the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into
the document history for... to find that there's basically no history.
 We see a string of versions posted, some with significant updates to
the text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion.  Nothing at
all.  The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a
working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and
two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to the
responsible AD requesting publication.

When I ask the responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the
response is that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was
discussed in the face-to-face meetings.  A look in the minutes of a
few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes
show little or none of the discussion.

We accept that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the
document shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad
consensus of the working group."

So here's my question:
Does the community want us to push back on those situations?  Does the
community believe that the real IETF work is done on the mailing
lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent that the
community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents whose
process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF process
was not properly followed?

I realize that this question is going to elicit some vehemence.
Please be brief and polite, as you respond.  :-)

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:07:38 -0500

> was not properly followed?

no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with high-bandwidth interactions. 

so document shepherd and AD should exercise judgement on how to see the community consensus/participation.

Marc.

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:14:31 -0800

On 11/27/12 10:00 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> all.
There are v6ops wg documents that have arrived in the IESG  queue with 
more than 1000 messages associated with them... I'm not sure that is 
indicative of any entirely healthy wg mailing list process but it does 
leave behind a lot of evidence.

even if all these things were healthy it seems like the actual outcomes 
would be wildly divergent given varying levels of interest.

>   The first we see of the document on the mailing list is a

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:50:35 -0800 (PST)

> was not properly followed?

The issue isn't the lack of comments but any potential lack of opportunity to
comment. If the document was announced on the list, prefably including
ancillary about changes that have been made, and people chose not to comment
there, then that's fine. But if information about the document wasn't made
available - as is sometimes the case if the document isn't named under the WG - 
then that's a problem.

				Ned

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 19:33:29 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]>
To: "IETF discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 6:00 PM

> was not properly followed?

Assuming that you are referring to I-Ds from a WG, then the WG chair is
saying that the document has been reviewed enough for it to progress.
The WG chair is appointed, in some sense of the word, by the ADs, past
or present, for the Area in question.  Thus what you seem to be asking
is should you trust the people appointed by the ADs.

Um, mostly yes, but then if you do push back, then that is an implicit
criticism of the WG chair and/or ADs.

In the WG in which I am active, I mostly do see push back from the WG
Chair, that unless and until people speak up on the list, eg during Last
Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy.
If people continue not to speak up, well then perhaps it is time to
close the WG, which is probably about right.

Tom Petch

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 10:41:40 -0900

I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate
review, and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers
from wg participants to review documents before moving them along.

Melinda

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 14:49:53 -0500

> Call, then the I-D in question is going nowhere - which I find healthy.

I strongly agree with this.

> close the WG, which is probably about right.

Even more with this.  It's a _working_ group, not a _meeting_ group.
If the work isn't getting done, shut it down.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:02:55 +1100

On 28/11/2012, at 5:00 AM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?

I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: Very much so.

if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because "its just an informational" or "well, the document shepherd claimed that it had been reviewed" then the IESG is as derelict in its duty.

If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to draft.

>  Does the

I do not speak for the community, naturally, but this particular member of the community says: yes, of course.

regards,

 Geoff

---

From: David Meyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:15:42 -0800

+1

--dmm

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Geoff Huston <[email-masked]> wrote:

> if neither the mailing list or the minutes of the meetings are showing no
> visible activity then its reasonable to conclude that the document is not
> the product of an open consensus based activity, and the proponents behind
> the document, who presumably used other fora (presumably closed) to get
> their document up the the IESG. If the IESG rubber stamps this because "its
> just an informational" or "well, the document shepherd claimed that it had
> been reviewed" then the IESG is as derelict in its duty.
>
> If a document in WG last call gets no visible support on the WG mailing
> list then it should never head to the IESG, nor should the IESG publish to
> draft.
>
>
> >  Does the

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 15:43:56 -0500

--On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 13:00 -0500 Barry Leiba
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on
> the mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to
> the extent that the community would want the IESG to refuse to
> publish documents whose process went as I've described above,
> on the basis that IETF process was not properly followed?
> 

Barry,

I find myself agreeing with Geoff and Andrew in thinking that
answer should usually be "yes, push back".  However, I think
that unusual situations do occur and that different WGs,
sometimes for good reason, have different styles.  As usual, I
favor good sense over the rigidity of process purity.  So a
suggestion: If a WG expects you the IESG to sign off on a
document based primarily on meeting list discussions, two
conditions should be met: (i) the minutes had better be
sufficiently detailed to be persuasive that there really was
review and that the document really is a WG product, not just
that of a few authors (or organizations) and (ii) there has to
be a clear opportunity, after the minutes appear (and Jabber
logs, etc., are available) for people on the mailing list to
comment on the presumed meeting decision.  I don't believe that
more specific guidelines for either of those conditions are
necessary or desirable other than to say that it is the
obligation of the WG and its chairs/shepherds to present
evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical.

Speaking for myself only, of course.

    john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:37:29 -0800

Hi Barry,
>consensus of the working group."

:-)

>was not properly followed?

A working group would be using consensus by apathy if there isn't any 
mailing discussion or any trace of discussions in the minutes.  The 
alternatives are to push back or shut down the working group.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: David Morris <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:54:15 -0800 (PST)

> evidence that it persuasive to an IESG that out to be skeptical.

I agree, though I'd add the preference that the WGLC explicitly
acknowledge the meeting notes as the record of discussion.

Dave Morris

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 13:20:28 -0800

On 11/27/2012 10:07 AM, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> no. Our work is done both on mailing lists and f2f meetings. As co-chair
> of a few wg, we have been doing great progress during f2f meeting with
> high-bandwidth interactions.

RFC2418 says that "business" happens in either place:

    ...
    All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide
    participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its
    business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet
    periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to
    resolve specific issues and to direct future activities. ...

Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not 
just those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would 
expect that such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even 
if initiated at a meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how 
action items were confirmed.

So my conclusion is that:
	- activity/participation can happen in either place
	- consensus should include mailing list confirmation

YMMV.

Joe

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:24:46 -0500

+1

-- 
HLS

---

From: John Leslie <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:14:04 -0500

> responsible AD requesting publication.

    I'm increasingly seeing a "paradigm" where the review happens _before_
adoption as a WG draft. After adoption, there's a great lull until the
deadline for the next IETF week. There tend to be a few, seemingly minor,
edits for a version to be discussed. The meeting time is taken up listing
changes, most of which get no discussion. Lather, rinse, repeat...

   After a few years, the WGCs tire of this, and issue a LastCall. Very
few WG participants reply, mostly being careful not to rock the boat.
The Document Editor, having other fish to fry by now, takes them under
consideration until the next IETF week. The document gets on the agenda,
but the story is pretty much indistinguishable from that of the previous
paragraph.

   Hearing no vocal objections, a WGC dutifully writes up a shepherding
report, saying "broad consensus". The document goes to IETF LastCall,
and gets some possibly less-gentle comments. Now it comes to the IESG
members.

> show little or none of the discussion.

   ... which is an honest reply by an overworked WGC. The very thought
of re-opening discussion in the WG sends shivers up his/her spine!

> consensus of the working group."

   (with several large grains of salt!)

> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?

   Speaking for myself, I very much want IESG members to push back on
calling no-visible-discussion "broad consensus".

   But understand, WGCs _don't_ want you to push back. And generally,
neither do the Document Editors. They have followed the rules as they
understood them. And they can point to a long list of RFCs that have
followed essentially the same paradigm.

> Does the community believe that the real IETF work is done on the
> mailing lists, and not in the face-to-face meetings, to the extent
> that the community would want the IESG to refuse to publish documents
> whose process went as I've described above, on the basis that IETF
> process was not properly followed?

   Understanding the dynamics of this paradigm, I wouldn't ask for that.
But I do believe this is a bad way to run a railroad.

   There are WGs where the WGCs prepare status-of-drafts reports. I
think such reports deserve to be formally presented to the Responsible
AD; and that two cycles of no-significant-discussion on-list is a
strong indicator that a new Document Editor is needed. Too often, the
Document Editor is the author of the pre-adoption draft, and lacks any
drive to make significant changes. (This is not an abuse if the WGC
never calls consensus to change anything; but the Document Editors I
consider good don't wait for a WGC declaration.)

   My point, essentially, is that some push-back is good, but it won't
solve the problem: even WG LastCall is often too late to fix this.

--
John Leslie <[email-masked]>

---

From: Donald Eastlake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 22:09:23 -0500

I generally agree with Joe. There should be discussion but the
distribution of that discussion between meeting and mailing list is
not significant; however, there must be sufficient opportunity for
objection or additional comments on the mailing list and, in the case
of discussion at a meeting, the meeting notes should be sufficiently
details to give you a feeling for what discussion occurred.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 [email-masked]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Joe Touch <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Overall, WG *decisions* are supposed to be "consensus of the WG", not just
> those who happen to be present at a given meeting, so I would expect that
> such decisions would be confirmed on the mailing list even if initiated at a
> meeting. At most meetings I've attended, this is how action items were
> confirmed.
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:15:53 +0000

On 27/11/2012 18:00, Barry Leiba wrote:
...
> was not properly followed?

In general, yes please, with room for special cases as John suggested.

At the same time I would like this part of RFC 2418 to be applied:

"  All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF
   meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available.  These
   minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the
   discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees."

The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue sheets,
but the barely literate "he said, she said" minutes from most WGs
are pretty much useless. For people attempting to participate only
via the mailing list this is a problem.

Let's have more minutes like these:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg

   Brian

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 09:23:52 +0000

+1

The length of the written mail list track of a document is only one indicator. It's an important one, but it should not be treated as absolute. Sometimes 2-3 people debated one obscure aspect of the document in tens of messages. 

In the case when a document generated zero or very little discussion on the mail list, and yet the write-up mentions 'broad consensus' I would recommend to verify what is the 'broad consensus' assessment based upon. 

Regards,

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Melinda Shore
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:42 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"
> 
> I think the core issue is whether or not there's been adequate review,
> and it seems to me to be appropriate to request volunteers from wg
> participants to review documents before moving them along.
> 
> Melinda

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:25:05 -0500

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 08:15 +0000 Brian E Carpenter
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>...
> The list of attendees is now taken care of by the scanned blue
> sheets, but the barely literate "he said, she said" minutes
> from most WGs are pretty much useless. For people attempting
> to participate only via the mailing list this is a problem.
> 

This is, IMO, a consequence of our developing fancy tools and
then uncritically relying on them.  A Jabber log or real-time
Etherpad may be, and probably is, a very helpful way to keep
real-time notes within a meeting but some WGs have substituted
nearly-unedited versions of them (especially the latter) for
minutes.  They are not minutes, certainly not minutes as
contemplated by RFC 2418, and I sincerely hope that the IESG and
the community push back on those "barely literate" notes before
there is an appeal against a WG decision or document approval
that is based, even in part, on failure of the WG to comply with
that 2418 requirement.

    john

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 03:28:37 -0800

Hi John,

[subject line mutated to reflect topic being discussed]

>minutes.  They are not minutes, certainly not minutes as

Yes.

Nobody likes to write minutes.  Very few people volunteer their free 
time to do them (thanks to John Leslie for scribing the IESG 
minutes).  When there is a discussion about producing minutes people 
come up with proposals for fancy tools.  This is where someone says: 
"Etherpad can do that".  There is a moment of silence when somebody 
finds out that there's nobody using Etherpad to take notes about 
what's going on.  Who would have thought that these fancy tools 
cannot work without people? :-)

>that is based, even in part, on failure of the WG to comply with

The community is too lethargic to push back on those "barely 
literate" notes.  One of these days there will be such an appeal.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:57:14 +0900

> adoption as a WG draft.

and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf
process.

randy

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:41:14 +0000

+1

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:31:38 +0000

I've certainly been to BOFs where I might think "this is a new topic" to discover that it's actually indistinguishable from a WG I just hadn't attended before - the documents already exist, and the inner circle of who knows who is already in place.

(The inner circle effect can be seen by examining minutes and seeing how often people are identified just by forename, because anyone reading the minutes is expected to know who's who in this group. Even the set of minutes Brian recommended had one such occurrence.)

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Senior Principal Engineer, Communications Group
Communications, Networks and Image Analysis Capability
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194 |  Fax: +44 1245 242124
[email-masked] | http://www.baesystems.com

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: 28 November 2012 11:57
To: John Leslie
Cc: Barry Leiba; IETF discussion list
Subject: Re: "IETF work is done on the mailing lists"

----------------------! WARNING ! ----------------------
This message originates from outside our organisation,
either from an external partner or from the internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
Follow the 'Report Suspicious Emails' link on IT matters
for instructions on reporting suspicious email messages.
--------------------------------------------------------

randy

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: tglassey <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:12:48 -0800

> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg
Brian - does this include conversations between principals of a WG 
effort who are conversing about genesis in that WG outside of the IETF 
mailing list - i.e. what happens to conversations inside a development 
team ? How is that genesis and creative power harnessed for inclusion 
into the IETF process?

Todd
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5921 - Release Date: 11/26/12
>
>

-- 
Regards TSG
"Ex-Cruce-Leo"

//Confidential Mailing - Please destroy this if you are not the intended recipient.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:18:05 -0500

On 11/27/2012 01:00 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> This brings up a question that I have as an AD: A number of times 
> since I started in this position in March, documents have come to the 
> IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document 
> history for... to find that there's basically no history. We see a 
> string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the text, 
> but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at all. The 
> first we see of the document on the mailing list is a working group 
> last call message, which gets somewhere between zero and two responses 
> (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to the responsible AD 
> requesting publication. When I ask the responsible AD or the document 
> shepherd about that, the response is that, well, no one commented on 
> the list, but it was discussed in the face-to-face meetings. A look in 
> the minutes of a few meetings shows that it was discussed, but, of 
> course, the minutes show little or none of the discussion. We accept 
> that, and we review the document as usual, accepting the document 
> shepherd's writeup that says that the document has "broad consensus of 
> the working group." So here's my question: Does the community want us 
> to push back on those situations?

Please, please, please push back on those discussions.

Far too many documents are being represented as WG consensus, and then 
IETF consensus, when there's nothing of the sort.   This degrades the 
overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who use 
IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by promoting 
use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted.

Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking people 
to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient.   A necessary 
condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be that several 
people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've read it, and that 
they consider it desirable and sound.

Keith

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:50:05 -0800

...
> discussed in the face-to-face meetings.
...
> Does the community want us to push back on those situations?

Just to add my own input to this:

'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what 
was discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it.

The formal rules of the IETF are that mailing lists are where formal 
decisions are made.

The working group needs to establish /explicit/ support for changes /on 
the list/.

You are reporting that, in formal terms, the IESG has been approving 
documents for which there is no formal record of community support...

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:32:35 +0100

> and one consequence is that the design gets done outside of the ietf

But this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It's nice to have reasonably
well thought out ideas come in.

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 08:45:53 -0800

> well thought out ideas come in.

The IETF has a long history of starting efforts from many different 
levels of technical maturity.

However there seems to be some recent leadership pressure to change 
this, attempting an ad hoc policy, by suddenly choosing to challenge the 
importation of existing work apparently based on a spontaneous, personal 
belief that it is bad to have IETF start from existing, deployed 
specifications.

There is, for example, a difference between saying "given the maturity 
and deployment of the document, what is the technical work to be done in 
the IETF?" versus "given the maturity and deployment of the document, 
why are you bringing it to the IETF?"  In pure terms, the latter 
question is, of course, entirely valid.

In pragmatic terms, I'll suggest that it is cast in a way that is 
frankly unfriendly, as well as going against quite a bit of established 
-- and productive -- practice.

I'll remind folk of the Thaler research suggesting that such work has 
the best track record of success for the modern IETF.

d/

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:53:43 -0500

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 03:28 -0800 SM
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Nobody likes to write minutes.  Very few people volunteer
> their free time to do them (thanks to John Leslie for scribing
> the IESG minutes).  When there is a discussion about producing
> minutes people come up with proposals for fancy tools.  This
> is where someone says: "Etherpad can do that".  There is a
> moment of silence when somebody finds out that there's nobody
> using Etherpad to take notes about what's going on.  Who would
> have thought that these fancy tools cannot work without
> people? :-)
> 
>> contemplated by RFC 2418, and I sincerely hope that the IESG
>> and the community push back on those "barely literate" notes
>> before there is an appeal against a WG decision or document
>> approval that is based, even in part, on failure of the WG to
>> comply with that 2418 requirement.
> 

Let me be clear.  For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to be
the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy unless
they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting them becomes
a joke.  _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an exception to the
principle that consensus has to be demonstrated on the mailing
list and instead wants to rely on face to face discussions, than
that WG is, IMO, obligated to have minutes complete and
comprehensible enough that someone who did not participate in
the meeting, even remotely, can determine what went on and why
and hence whether the proposed solution or agreement is
acceptable.   If  the WG cannot produce such minutes, then I
think it is obligated to be able to demonstrate consensus from
the mailing list discussions alone.

Rather clear tradeoff, IMO.

   john

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:11:13 -0500

> Rather clear tradeoff, IMO.

... and in those cases it is very important that the "minutes" (although
I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as much of the arguments
as possible.  A reader on the mailing list will be utterly shortchanged
if all he/she gets are conclusions and action points.  In the past,
individual WGs have argued about whether to include actual names in the
meeting notes.  Personally I'm in favor but even without them, at least
the issues and pros and cons of a significant decision must be
documented in detail.

On the larger topic, and the relationship of the mailing list to the f2f
meetings, here is a policy we tried in IntArea:
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/intarea/trac/wiki/MeetingTimePrioritization

Scott

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:24:30 -0500

>>>>> "John" == John C Klensin <[email-masked]> writes:

    John> Let me be clear.  For most WGs and purposes, most of the time,
    John> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
    John> be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
    John> unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
    John> them becomes a joke.  _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
    John> exception to the principle that consensus has to be
    John> demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
    John> face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
    John> have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
    John> who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
    John> determine what went on and why and hence whether the proposed
    John> solution or agreement is acceptable.  If the WG cannot produce
    John> such minutes, then I think it is obligated to be able to
    John> demonstrate consensus from the mailing list discussions alone.

Unfortunately demonstraiting discussions based on the mailing list alone
also opens latitude for appeals.  According to RFc 2418, chairs must
combine the face-to-face discussions and mailing lists when judging
consensus.
If I as a participant believe that the face-to-face discussions when
added to the mailing list discussion would change the outcome and the
chairs say they are only considering the mailing list discussions, I
have valid grounds for an appeal.

Take a look at the discussions surrounding the IPv6 site-local appeal
and particular at the responses generated at the IAB and IESG level for
some of our historical thinking on this.

Personally I'd strongly support an update to RFC 2418 that
allowed|encouraged|required chairs to take a consensus call entirely to
the list .

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 14:36:04 -0700

On 11/28/12 4:28 AM, SM wrote:
> Nobody likes to write minutes.  Very few people volunteer their
> free time to do them...

IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio recording
and produce minutes from that (or at least check the scribe's minutes
against the audio recording). I've done this in the past (full
disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:45:54 -0800

> disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work.

I strongly disagree.

Chairs have a high workload already.  A strength of a working group 
needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst participants.

If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant willing 
to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of them, then the 
wg has bigger problems.

d/

ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant to 
the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency hack 
that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:33:35 -0500

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> writes:

    Dave> On 11/28/2012 1:36 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
    >> IMHO it is the chairs' responsibility to listen to the audio
    >> recording and produce minutes from that (or at least check the
    >> scribe's minutes against the audio recording). I've done this in
    >> the past (full disclosure: not always) and it is a lot of work.

    Dave> I strongly disagree.

    Dave> Chairs have a high workload already.  A strength of a working
    Dave> group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst
    Dave> participants.

    Dave> If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant
    Dave> willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review
    Dave> of them, then the wg has bigger problems.

I'm mostly with Dave here.  As a chair I(and AD) I've sometimes found it
necessary to listen to an audio recording, and I'm really incredibly
glad they're there.
However, I don't want that to be the norm.
I found audio recordings really helpful for example in dealing with
appeals or threatened appeals.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:45:01 -0700

On 11/28/12 2:45 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Chairs have a high workload already.  A strength of a working
> group needs to be its ability to distribute work amongst
> participants.
> 
> If a working group cannot obtain the services of a participant
> willing to take notes and be responsible for getting wg review of
> them, then the wg has bigger problems.

In my experience, if a lot is happening in the WG session at an IETF
meeting then it is extremely difficult for any one participant (or
even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes. One
example that I chaired was the second codec BoF in Hiroshima (and
forget about the first one in Stockholm!). However, I think Ted Hardie
and I did a pretty good job with the second httpbis session in Paris.
YMMV. But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the
minutes.

> ps. I'll repeat that I think f2f needs to be essentially irrelevant
> to the assessment of wg consensus, except perhaps as an efficiency
> hack that permits more terse exchanges on the mailing list.

That's a separate topic, but I tend to disagree. Why the heck even
have meetings? And I concur with Marc Blanchet that some WGs really
gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on
the mailing list.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 16:56:48 -0600

> gel and make good progress in person but don't have great threads on

It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I 
think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact. But if that 
happens, the chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other 
participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask 
for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work 
that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend meetings 
(including new folks who come along) a chance to participate and voice 
their concerns. *Achievement* of consensus might have to occur f2f for 
some issues in some WGs, but it seems to me that *assessment* of 
consensus must be completely possible on the list, even if the only 
poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f notes.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:07:14 +0900

> think that's often a sign of a problem, but it's a fact.

i am not so sure it's a problem.  email is a great miscommunication
mechanism.  so mailing lists go disfunctional far more easily than face
to face.

we're funny monkeys and seem to need physical presence.  we'll see how
we do with remote participation if we ever untangle that charlie
foxtrot.

randy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:15:54 -0800

On 11/28/2012 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> even a team of two working on etherpad) to take accurate notes.
...
> But I do think the chairs are ultimately responsible for the
> minutes.

The chairs are responsible for running things and ensuring fair and 
thorough process.  Part of running things is delegating tasks.

If someone signs up to take notes, then they ought to have 
responsibility to produce them, including reviewing the audio, if that's 
needed.  The wg approves minutes, not the chairs.  The chairs should 
manage the overall process, but I'll repeat:  A wg needs to distribute 
its workload and if it can't do that, it has basic problems.

> have meetings?

Meetings are for more efficient discussion of particular topics, as well 
as the development of support for choices.  But support is different 
than saying "wg decision".

To the extent that a f2f is making definitive decisions, then the IETF 
has become exclusionary against those unable to attend the f2f meeting.

And no, remote participation is never going to be equivalent.  Having to 
'attend' at 2am remotely is not the same as attending at 10am locally.

d/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:49:19 -0800

Hi Dave,

Yes.

>them, then the wg has bigger problems.

I listen to the audio as it allows me to understand the decisions and 
see whether the notes will give some random person an understanding 
of what happened.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:57:23 -0800

+1

It's much easier to reach a consensus face to face, than on a mailing list.  I think we have all seen this.

Bob

---

From: Geoff Huston <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 13:56:17 +1100

> well thought out ideas come in.

Which then become highly defined precepts that become incredibly resistant to IETF change on the basis that they have been well thought out already (and probably are IPR-ridden) and at that stage the IETF process is functionally reduced to rubber stamping. At that stage the value of the IETF imprimatur becomes highly dubious to the industry its meant to serve.

It's not clear to me if this idea of taking in 'mature' work is altogether a good thing.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:30:29 -0500

--On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 16:11 -0500 Scott Brim
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> the "minutes" are the minutes and I'm certainly not going to
>> be the one who makes a big fuss about clarity or literacy
>> unless they are so incomplete and incompetent that posting
>> them becomes a joke.  _However_ if a WG wants to make/be an
>> exception to the principle that consensus has to be
>> demonstrated on the mailing list and instead wants to rely on
>> face to face discussions, than that WG is, IMO, obligated to
>> have minutes complete and comprehensible enough that someone
>> who did not participate in the meeting, even remotely, can
>...
> ... and in those cases it is very important that the "minutes"
> (although I would avoid that as a pre-loaded term) cover as
> much of the arguments as possible.  A reader on the mailing
> list will be utterly shortchanged if all he/she gets are
> conclusions and action points.  In the past, individual WGs
> have argued about whether to include actual names in the
> meeting notes.  Personally I'm in favor but even without them,
> at least the issues and pros and cons of a significant
> decision must be documented in detail.

Yes, exactly.
    john

---

From: "Hutton, Andrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:26:31 +0000

As a chair I always find it useful to go back and review the audio/Meetecho recording following the meeting and whilst doing so I might as well tidy up the minutes.

The F2F meeting time can be quite hectic for the chairs and I tend to be concentrating on making sure that we stay on time and everybody gets a fair chance to say what they want to.  So it is a must to go back over the recording and make sure I understood all the points people made during the meeting and I might as well check the minutes whilst doing so.

Andy 

> Sent: 28 November 2012 21:46
> To: Peter Saint-Andre
> Cc: IETF discussion list
> Subject: Re: Barely literate minutes
> 
> 
> 
> recording

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:38:15 +0000

----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
To: "Peter Saint-Andre" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; "IETF discussion list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:56 PM
> It is a fact of life that some WGs only make progress face-to-face. I

Pete

I find that strange, not something I have ever seen (at least judging by
the minutes of WG meetings which I have not attended).

I see many WG which only make progress just prior to the closing of I-D
submission up to the point soon after submission reopens, but that is
not the same thing as making progress by meeting.

And I do know of two or so WG which make progress at a meeting; but they
seem to me to be WG that are too small to be a WG in the first place,
where the work is driven by less than half a dozen people who gain much
from meeting but where the breadth of experience and knowledge is
missing and where the output is then, for me, suspect.

WG of a substantial size seem to me to gain little or nothing from
meeting, as the minutes show.

Tom Petch

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:42:17 +0100

[apologies to some for duplicates]

Hi Geoff,

On 11/29/12 3:56 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:

> It's nice to have reasonably well thought out ideas come in.
>

In my experience, when the IETF has been offered work that the other
party felt was "complete" and would refuse to allow changes to, we've
demurred (c.f., html).  On the other hand, in the instances I'm aware,
when the IETF did accept the work, it was always made clear that the
IETF had change control (and used it).  A perfect current example of
this right now is scim.  There were numerous implementations of scim,
and it was brought to the IETF not only for the imprimatur but also to
improve the work.

A simpler explanation is that the authors and editors of work are more
immersed than others, and therefore project more authority.  Certainly
that has been the case in nearly all efforts I've been involved, with a
notable exception that also is illustrative: oauth, where an editor left
the IETF precisely because he could not agree with the results.  that's
a good indication that we're striking a balance.

Eliot

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 06:27:59 -0800

I also support pushing back in those circumstances, but I do (or would, as
an AD) accept the minutes as a record of WG discussion.  Minutes are, or at
least are supposed to be, posted to the list for discussion and informal
approval by the WG.  This just means the minutes, especially about
documents that only got f2f discussion, need to be adequately detailed.
Often, they are not.

-MSK

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 'Want' is almost irrelevant. In formal terms, it does not matter what was
> discussed at the face-to-face nor what notes are taken about it.
>

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 15:30:11 +0100

On Wed 28/Nov/2012 16:18:05 +0100 Keith Moore wrote:
>> since I started in this position in March, documents have come to
>> the IESG that prompted me (or another AD) to look into the document
>> string of versions posted, some with significant updates to the
>> text, but *no* corresponding mailing list discussion. Nothing at
>> working group last call message, which gets somewhere between zero
>> and two responses (which say "It's ready."), and then it's sent to
>> the responsible AD requesting publication. When I ask the
>> responsible AD or the document shepherd about that, the response is
>> that, well, no one commented on the list, but it was discussed in
>> the face-to-face meetings. A look in the minutes of a few meetings
>> shows that it was discussed, but, of course, the minutes show little
>> or none of the discussion. We accept that, and we review the
>> document as usual, accepting the document shepherd's writeup that
>> says that the document has "broad consensus of the working group."
>> So here's my question: Does the community want us to push back on
>> those situations?
> 
> overall quality of IETF output, confuses the community of people who
> use IETF standards, and potentially does harm to the Internet by
> promoting use of protocols that haven't been carefully vetted.
> 
> Simply presenting a document at a face-to-face meeting and asking
> people to raise hands or hum in approval isn't sufficient.   A
> necessary condition for IESG consideration of a WG document should be
> that several people have posted to the WG mailing list that they've
> read it, and that they consider it desirable and sound.

+1, s/several/some/, especially if qualified.

jm2c

---

From: Edward Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 09:54:58 -0500

On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:42, Eliot Lear wrote:
> immersed than others, and therefore project more authority.

To me, when "projecting authority" one is either demonstrating a deeper understanding of the topic than others or is bullying the others.  So I have a mixed reaction to that statement.  One the one hand it could be that work done elsewhere and brought the IETF comes along with people helping to educate the IETF or comes with people bullying the IETF.

I guess what I'm trying to express is that when baked work is brought into the IETF it is subjective whether the process is healthy or not.

Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret.  I agree with that.  At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were already on the way to a predetermined solution.  Only one had a presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just had detailed talks on draft solutions.  In one there was a complaint that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF!  Not very engaging.

Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about.  Bringing in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Edward Lewis             
NeuStar                    You can leave a voice message at +1-571-434-5468

There are no answers - just tradeoffs, decisions, and responses.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:11:30 -0500

On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
...
> chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other participants) post
> detailed notes of the discussion to the list and ask for objections. That
> serves two functions: (a) It makes a record of work that was done; and (b)
> it gives people who don't attend meetings (including new folks who come
> along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement* of
> consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but it seems
> to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely possible on the
> list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair with all of the f2f
> notes.

What I would prefer to see is that in addition to minutes there be
separate messages posted to the list for each document, detailing the
discussion of that document in the meeting and the changes that will
result from the discussion.  That can be posted by the chair, but I'd
really expect it to come from a document editor.  That makes sure that
everyone can see what the document editor heard and intends to do with
the document, and allows the working group to continue the discussion
or say, "Yes, that's what we heard as well, and it's fine."

And I think that should be posted as soon after the meeting session as
possible.  It should definitely not wait for the document updates to
be done, perhaps weeks later, after everyone who was there has
forgotten the details.

I think I have a topic to discuss at the App chairs lunch in Orlando.  :-)

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:36:34 -0800

> It's much easier to reach a consensus face to face, than on a mailing list.  I think we have all seen this.

F2f meetings are explicitly managed, with significant control of the 
room.  Mailing list exchanges are typically not managed at all.

Given the difference, it's not surprising that one proves more 
productive than the other.

d/

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:51:22 -0800

Hi Ed,
At 06:54 29-11-2012, Edward Lewis wrote:
>Earlier in the thread I saw that someone expressed dismay that BOFs 
>seem to be WG's that have already been meeting in secret.  I agree 
>with that.  At the last meeting in Atlanta, I filled in sessions 
>with BOFs and found that the ones I chose seemed as if they were 
>already on the way to a predetermined solution.  Only one had a 
>presentation trying to set up the problem to be solved, others just 
>had detailed talks on draft solutions.  In one there was a complaint 
>that the mail list wasn't very active - not a WG, a BOF!  Not very engaging.

Christopher DearLove used the term [1] "inner circle".  There are 
people who will meet outside of the sessions listed on the agenda to 
discuss some predetermined solution.  By the time the problem gets to 
be discussed in a BoF there might be a draft proposing a solution.

Picking a few BoFs from the last agenda:

   RFC Format BoF

It was pointed out that it was not a BoF.  The agenda [2] mentions 
"Applicability of previously proposed solutions".  It does not 
provide any details about the proposed solutions.  I think that some 
people asked about that before the meeting.

   HTTPAUTH BoF

The agenda mentions [3] "5 presentations".  It does not list the 
presentations.  The people who have been reading the relevant mailing 
list would be able to know what might be presented.

   WPKOPS BoF

The agenda [4] does not mention any proposed solution.  There is an 
IETF mailing list where there was prior discussion about that BoF.

   Extensions of the Bonjour Protocol Suite (mdnsext) BoF

The agenda [5] mentions "Goals of the BoF" with a link.  I don't 
recall whether any proposed solution was discussed.

People generally complain when a mailing list is active.  When a 
mailing list is very active people start insulting each other.

Scott Brim posted a policy that was tried [6].  I doubt that there 
would be IETF consensus about implementing that across all IETF sessions.

As for engaging mailing lists, well, they can end up being 
unmanageable.  I'll mention an example.  This thread is a sub-thread 
where an Area Director [7] suggested "Please be brief and 
polite".  Nobody in their right mind would attempt to enforce that.

>Bringing in baked work because there are multiple independent and 
>non-interoperable solutions is what the IETF is all about.  Bringing 
>in a baked specification just to get a stamp on it is not.

Some people like having that stamp.

Regards,
-sm

1. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76024.html
2. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-rfcform.html
3. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-httpauth.html
4. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-wpkops.html
5. http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/agenda-85-mdnsext.html
6. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76042.html
7. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg76001.html

---

From: "Lee Howard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 16:45:29 -0500

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Barry Leiba
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 10:12 AM
> To: IETF discussion list
> > chair needs to (with the help of minutes takers and other
> > participants) post detailed notes of the discussion to the list and
> > ask for objections. That serves two functions: (a) It makes a record
> > of work that was done; and (b) it gives people who don't attend
> > meetings (including new folks who come
> > along) a chance to participate and voice their concerns. *Achievement*
> > of consensus might have to occur f2f for some issues in some WGs, but
> > it seems to me that *assessment* of consensus must be completely
> > possible on the list, even if the only poster to the list is the chair
> > with all of the f2f notes.
> 
separate messages posted to
> the list for each document, detailing the discussion of that document in
the meeting and the
> changes that will result from the discussion.  That can be posted by the
chair, but I'd really
> expect it to come from a document editor.  That makes sure that everyone
can see what the
> document editor heard and intends to do with the document, and allows the
working group to
> continue the discussion or say, "Yes, that's what we heard as well, and
it's fine."

As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take good
notes for me, because
all of the great comments I get at the mike are lost otherwise.  I can't
take notes while I'm
standing up, facilitating discussion.

As a working group chair I take my own notes, as backup to the note-taker,
then merge the
notes.

Lee

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:27:48 +0900

> As a document author, I've learned that I need to have a friend take
> good notes for me, because all of the great comments I get at the mike
> are lost otherwise.

this gap makes me crazy, so much is often lost.  but i do not think
technology or process will close this hole.  too much depends on fairly
deep understanding of the subject.

> I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion.

i can't take notes while i am trying to understand and think about the
important semantics of a discussion, period.  but much of this may be a
personal failing, poor typist, rotting mind, ...

randy

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:06:05 -0600

> I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion.

Interesting. I am forced to (only somewhat facetiously) ask: Why are 
*you* standing up, facilitating discussion, if you are the editor? 
Shouldn't that be the chair's job? More seriously: Since we started this 
PowerPoint/Comments-at-the-mic thing oh so many years ago, doing 
document reviews in presentation form where the editor is the one doing 
the slides has created this problem. Perhaps a better mode would be for 
the editor to write up the list of open issues, have the chair project 
them if need be, and the editor can get up to the mic with 
explanations/questions as needed but otherwise remain seated so they can 
jot down the notes they need. I think I've done something like that a 
long time ago as an editor. Worth trying, I'd think.

pr

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:53:46 -0500

>> I can't take notes while I'm standing up, facilitating discussion.

+1.

> personal failing, poor typist, rotting mind, ...

I have this same issue as well. If I need to participate in a few
discussions in the wg I decline to take minutes there as I do not
believe I could do a good job with the minutes.

For the record, as a minute taker, it takes me approximately 2x meeting
time to come up with the minutes (I go back to the audio to fill in
gaps, send individual mails to commenters to better understand their
comments etc.) in addition to *almost completely* missing participation
in the meeting.

Thanks
Suresh

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:02:33 -0300

> standing up, facilitating discussion.

FWIW, I've got used to listen to the audio recordings -- particualrly if
I have not attended that meeting.

At times, that has implied pre-processing the audio to increase the
volume level or reduce the background noise.

This has also proven to be useful, when, while there, I couldn't fully
understand what the guy at the mike was saying, either because of
low-volume, background noise, or a strong accent I wasn't used to.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1