Re: Virtual meeting scheduling

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

Magnus,

Commenting only on the general issues.  I think the particular
NFSv4 situation is important only insofar as it prompts some
review, clarification, and adjustment of policies....

--On Thursday, July 9, 2020 07:45 +0000 Magnus Westerlund
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>...
> So the WG and I have been aware of the scheduling of this
> Interim since the 18th of June when it was finalized. The
> agenda was provided to the WG 10 days in advance. The fact
> that this was scheduled when it was, i.e. a bit more than 2
> weeks before an IETF meeting was to ensure that the WG would
> make progress and have an effective meeting. Something that
> was less sure if the WG had scheduled during the IETF 108. I
> was aware of this and approved it. 

I don't know when it changed (or just feel out of memory and
into disuse), but there used to be a rather strong prohibition
against interim WG meetings (teleconference, f2f, or a mix)
within a few weeks of IETF meetings and, IIR, within a month or
two of IETF meetings if the WG was meeting at those EITF-wide
meetings.  The reason, IIR, was less about WG effectiveness than
about IETF effectiveness and, in particular, promotion of
cross-WG and cross-area review and discussions (not just "team"
reviews during IETF Last Calls.   I don't know how to preserve
the parts of the cross-area review that depend on reactions
"hey, I'm here anyway and I'm vaguely interested in that or am
working on things that might overlap with it, so I'll sit in on
their meeting and see what I can learn".  However, because one
of the important things that has distinguished the IETF from
other SDOs is precisely the quality of cross-area interactions
and reviews, I don't think we should give it up without some
awareness and thought.  FWIW, we've never (AFAIK) had formal
liaisons among WGs, but the equivalent is exactly what many
other SDOs do to try to cover interactions and overlaps.  The
need for them becomes part of the chartering process and in
frequent reviews thereafter. If we can't figure out an
equivalent to that old expectation of people wondering into
meetings of mostly (but not entirely) unrelated WGs and paying
attention (e.g., not just doing email), then maybe we should be
thinking about adapting those liaison ideas [1].

> The failure here has been to get the meeting into the
> datatracker so that it was announced to the broad IETF
> community. Which looking at the IESG statement: 
> 
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meet
> ings-guidance-2016-01-16/  is not required for virtual
> interrims. But, something that clearly has its point and I am
> happy to discuss that further with the community and IESG if
> the general rules should be so that this is required.  

First, following the comments above, I think we may need to
distinguish between a virtual interim (between meetings as part
of plenary IETF meetings) and virtual substitutes for meetings
at/during those IETF meetings.  If I want to loosely track what
a WG is doing (e.g., because its work might easily wander into
an area in which I have interest and expertise even if that is
not clearly in-charter or in-scope) so I can determine whether I
need to object or pay more careful attention, then there is huge
difference between: 

*  spending an hour or two three times a year listening in on a
meeting and following up as needed and 

* following the mailing list, reading many or most of the
documents, and participating in whatever WG-specific (aka
"interim" -- that very term may need review) meetings are held.  

That situation really doesn't change if the main IETF meetings
are online because I can look at a consolidated agenda for those
meetings rather than needing to notice that a particular WG
didn't sign up for a slot and then figure out what they are
using as a substitute.

>...
> So I think there are still important difference between F2F
> and virtual Interims due to the additional costs related to
> travel and where sufficient advance notice is required to
> ensure that people can attend. So I think that do motivate a
> difference between 2 and 4 weeks prior announcenemnt.

If one focuses almost exclusively on active WG participants, I
think you are probably correct.  If one is also interested in
people who might want to drop in and maintain a general sense of
what is going on, maybe not.   

> I think requiring public announcement for both F2F and virtual
> Interrim meetings is probably something we should do.
> Especially as getting the datatracker to be able to store
> minutes and slides requires the meeting to have been
> scheduled. So in reality I would guess that almost all WG have
> been doing this anyway.

Yes.  But, as you imply, regularizing this a bit so there is no
confusion (and fewer accidental omissions or late discoveries)
would probably be A Good Thing.

> Blackout periods around the IETF meetings is something we can
> definitely discuss more. I know the IESG are interested in
> hearing the communities view of these. We did make a decision
> very recently for IETF 108 that was announced on the 2nd of
> July:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/4Xp3RYZm1v
> fboV0ivnB7xucjkhY/

But that is a one week window.  I think the discussion above
justified a look at a somewhat wider one... especially for those
cases that are "instead of meeting at IETF" rather than "in
addition to".    Just my opinion of course.

>...

best,   
     john


[1] We have formally recognized one of those areas of potential
overlap that requires intermittent, but not necessarily
continuous, monitoring by experts outside WGs.  We recognize the
security issues may affect almost everything, require Security
Considerations sections in any I-D that is going to be
considered by the IETF and review those sections carefully, etc.
However, security is not the only one: In the last decade or
two, I've gotten particularly sensitive to internationalization
(i18n) issues (and we have an "Internationalization
Considerations" section requirement that is observed much less
often than might be desirable) and I think there are others that
are less broadly pervasive than security and i18n but no less
important for the work that is affected.  The thing that makes
security special --and our dealing with security issues in
non-Security Area WGs more effective-- is that it _is_ an area,
with a couple of experts on the IESG.  For the others, we need
to either rely on all ADs knowing what is going on in every WG
outside their areas (a profoundly unrealistic idea) or we need
to rely on the community to spot things.  For the latter,
everything we can reasonably do about broad notice of meetings,
etc. (without that process becoming disruptive or high-noise) is
probably worth looking at.   Recognizing the burden it would
impose on ADs and therefore understanding the practical
tradeoffs, I have been wondering whether we should be thinking
about restoring the old practice of regular reports from each
Area to the community for the same reason.