Re: IAB agendas now public

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Randy,

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 5:30 AM, Randy Bush <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> Yes. And I didn't mean that all politics should be in executive
>>> session. It's just that if the IAB needs to discuss how it should
>>> respond to external politically charged events, the discussion would
>>> happen in one of three ways:
>>> 
>>> 1. In an open session, in which case the IAB would be showing its
>>> weaknesses to the other parties.
>>> 
>>> 2. In an executive session.
>>> 
>>> 3. If #2 is not an option, in a secret meeting.
>>> 
>>> I like #3 less than #2. So if there's to be a new dispensation,
>>> I think the IAB needs to be able to hold executive sessions about
>>> external (non-I*TF) matters as well as the usual HR/legal matters.
>>> In general, I don't see why internal I*TF matters would need
>>> secrecy.
>> 
>> The IAB does a lot of discussions with external partners. Sometimes that
>> involves bargaining, and bargaining often involves a part of bluff. One
>> of the concerns is that if the IAB entirely discusses its bargaining
>> positions in open meetings, then the other party will effectively see
>> through the bluff, and the IAB/IETF negotiation position will be much
>> weakened.
> 
> so holding a secret meeting within a closed meeting to discuss a bof on
> the rfc series is
>  o perfectly fine
>  o a lapse of judgement (of course i have none of those :)
>  o a lapse of process
>  o your ad goes here?

If the IAB decided it needed to discuss an IETF BOF proposal in executive session something is seriously wrong.   This was not a personal matter, nor negotiating with another group, nor discussing individuals being considered for an open position.

This is very broken.

Bob