--On Friday, July 11, 2025 09:57 -0400 Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 7:35 AM Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/07/2025 00:44, Jay Daley wrote: >> > Hi John >> > >> > It's a public Trello board that does not require a login to >> > view. I just >> tested it to make sure. >> >> When I try read it, I get: "To use Trello, please enable >> JavaScript." >> >> I allow-listed ietf.org with NoScript yonks ago, and recently had >> to add some cloudflare thing to get past the pre-login captcha >> (with a limit on the calling page being ietf.org which took quite >> a while to figure out) and now I have to add who knows who else to >> see the list of side meetings? >> >> /me unhappy, in particular with this most recent one where the >> putative benefit (joint editing of side-meeting roster to avoid >> conflicts) seems like only a tiny win at the cost of significant >> widening of the attack surface for all NoScript users. >> >> I suggest looking for some other way to handle side meeting co- >> ordination with no or fewer bad side effects for next time. > If the new way has a way to incorporate the meeting as a calendar > entry, that would be great. I can only create a 'card' at the > moment and then make a manual calendar entry (unless I am missing > something). I have trouble guessing where it might rank with all of the other priorities for improved tooling, but I find myself agreeing with both you and Stephen that the current system leaves a lot to be desired for both those scheduling meetings (especially if they are relative newcomers to the IETF) and for those trying to find out about meetings and what they are about. In particular, if we are going to support side meetings with IETF-provided tools and in IETF-provided spaces, maybe we should be considering simply having a button on the meeting agenda that turns side meeting display on and off, allowing the "meeting materials" button (but probably not others) to work for them rather than dancing around with Trello or anything else. If the reason for not doing that is that it would blur the line between official IETF activities and side meetings, I think what is being done already in terms of instructions and tools already blur that line sufficiently that, plus or minus a warning or two that could be applied either way, the distinction is already close to theater. At the other extreme, it is really a separate issue but I'm finding myself suffering from a bit of nostalgia for the days in which organized side meetings were forbidden in the hotel or other facility hosting the IETF meeting -- they needed to be either in private hotel rooms or somewhere else entirely and the IETF provided no listing of them, when they occurred, etc. The idea was to prevent any real or perceived conflict with IETF activities as well as any misperceptions. Clearly we have abandoned that principle but, if we are going to support side meetings in the ways we are today, maybe even the idea of allowing/ supporting them at times that are in conflict with regular meeting slots is in need of some explicit community review. For some purposes, we probably also need better guidance for participants, especially relatively new ones, about the balance between side meetings to discuss proposed new work and Dispatch or Area meeting presentations. best, john
