Re: Simplifying our processes: Conference Calls

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hannes,

On 04/12/2012 08:28, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> Hi Brian, 
> 
> 
>> The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
>> know.
> 
> Working group mailing lists are also public. 

Well yes, but we are talking here about (virtual) meetings.

> 
>> I regularly attend WG meetings where I am not subscribed - it's one of
>> the
>> side benefits of the week-long meetings - and who's to say that I might
>> not
>> want to drop into OAuth too?
> 
> Are you talking about IETF meetings? I am talking about conference calls here. 

There's no difference in principle.

> 
> Are you regularly joining conference calls of working groups where you are not subscribed to the mailing lists?

No. My point is that I have the right to. If not, it's a design team, and
that's a different discussion.

>> Suppose I happened to notice (I am making this up) that the foobar WG
>> has
>> decided to use the IPv6 Flow Label for an unintended purpose? I'd like
>> to know if they are going to have a conf call, so that I can explain
>> RFC 6437 to them. Otherwise, I have no interest in foobar.
> How would you find this out from the announcement of the conference call given that the agenda does not have to announced at the same time? (unless you join every conference call to figure out whether there is something of interest for you?)

I assume that the announcement would point to the agenda. Or I could look
at the WG mail archive at that point. In any case, I couldn't complain
later that the discussion had been kept private.

I don't see that informing the secretariat about virtual interims is a
significant burden on WG Chairs, compared to all the other work
involved.

    Brian

     Brian