Re: Question about pre-meeting document posting deadlines for the IESG and the community

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi John,
At 09:22 PM 22-03-2024, John C Klensin wrote:
>I think where we disagree is that I'm at least a little more
>concerned about working groups that become too homogeneous and
>resistant to "outsider" views and input.   Now, I think such WGs
>are quite rare in the IETF, but I have seen a few situations
>that I have trouble interpreting in any other way.  Ideally, I'd
>like to see ADs actively monitoring such groups but the ADs have
>become sufficiently busy that they may not know what is going on
>unless someone tells them... and no one within such a WG is
>likely to tell them.   I also have what I gather has become a
>rather quaint notion that ADs should be accountable for the
>behavior of their WGs even though I see and sympathize with the
>overload problem.  So I see "AD must approve" as a possible
>small way to alert an AD that someone out of the ordinary
>_might_ be going on.  I'd be almost as happy with "WG Chair can
>decide, but AD must be notified in a timely way and has the
>right to override the decision".

Let's see:

   1. A WG Chair decides to allow an I-D to be added a day
      before a meeting.

   2. There isn't any complaint about the decision.

   3. The RAD overrides the decision.

Why have someone chair a meeting if he/she has to ask his/her manager 
for permission?

Why would the RAD override a decision when the people in the group 
seem happy with it?


It may be better to treat the "too homogeneous and resistant" problem 
separately.

>As far as groups not meeting at the IETF, I agree with you but
>with one caution.  Suppose there are people participating in one
>or more not-meeting groups but also actively involved with
>groups that are meeting.  I don't know whether activity in the
>not-meeting groups might distracting them from things during the
>week but we should at least be asking the question.  And, fwiw,
>another part of the larger picture is our traditional
>prohibition on interim meetings during, or right before or
>after, IETF meetings.  That is another area in which it might be
>reasonable for a chair to decide to waive the rules but where I
>think the responsible (interesting term, that) AD should at
>least be aware that the meeting is happening and that the
>chair(s) should be aware that participants in that WG might also
>be participating in others.

The RAD would probably receive a notice if the WG is going to have a meeting.

>I also see one of the main values of IETF meetings being the
>opportunity for people who are not actively part of a WG to drop
>in, find out what is going on, and maybe learn something.  Who
>knows, they might turn into active participants.    Even at this
>meeting, very remote and with some time zone disability, I
>managed to sit in on a few meetings that left me with the
>feeling that there are some issues to which I should be paying
>more attention.  As I have not been the only one to point out,
>documents and/or agendas and/or meetings materials posted very
>close to the meeting may tend to frustrate that sort of open
>participation and openness to newcomers to that WG.  If it
>happens at one IETF meeting, I think "perceived emergency" or
>"special circumstances" likely justify it.  If it happens time
>after time, then IMO someone external to the WG should be taking
>a look at the causes of such a pattern and whether something
>needs fixing.  I don't see it as an absolute but as one of many
>tradeoffs we need to make.  But, again, I see WG accountability
>to ADs and AD accountability to the community as crucial to
>avoiding abuses or even the appearance of them.  If the IETF has
>stopped caring about those things, my views are irrelevant to
>anything but the question of how long it will survive or
>deserves to do so.

I could not find any email from someone self-identified as new 
pointing out that they could not understand what was going on as the 
materials (for that meeting) were only available a day before the 
meeting.  I agree with what you wrote about open participation.

What is happening is that people having been finding ways to get 
around the two-weeks restriction and those ways are quite 
effective.  Every few years (it's actually 13 years), there is a 
discussion such as this one.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy