Re: [Rats] Meeting culture ... Re: CoTS and CoRIM

[Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas,

I disagree strongly with your and Henk's responses.

As Hannes wrote at the beginning of this thread:

"Unfortunately, those are not design team meetings either. There is
guidance also on design team meetings and none of that guidance is
followed by these meetings.

Here is the IESG DT statement:
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/design-teams/"

Please don't call your unofficial meetings, without actions or minutes
on the RATS mailing list, "Design Team meetings", as this is a breach
of standard IESG rules.

Cheers,
- Ira

*Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)*

*Chair - SAE Trust Anchors and Authentication TF*
*Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG*

*Co-Chair - TCG Metadata Access Protocol SG*








*Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WGSecretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
Working GroupCo-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WGIETF
Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIBBlue Roof Music / High North
Inchttp://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
<http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic>http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
<http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc>mailto: [e-mail]
<[e-mail]>(permanent) PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839
906-494-2434*


On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 11:53 AM Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Hannes,
>
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 13:12, Hannes Tschofenig
> <hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Henk,
> >
> > we seem to have different views about how work in the IETF should be
> done.
> >
> > That's not a problem since there is most likely no right or wrong answer
> > here.
> >
> > Let me share my view nevertheless: when an individual draft becomes a
> > working group item discussions have to be made in public giving as many
> > participants as possible a chance to provide input.
> >
> > To have useful meetings, you need to
> >
> >   - find a date that maximizes participation,
> >
> >   - announce the meeting well in advance,
> >
> >   - post an agenda,
> >
> >   - produce meeting minutes (which capture, at a minimum, the action
> > items), and
> >
> >   - give participants time to resolve their action items
> >
> > As we know, it is almost impossible to fulfill this list with weekly
> > meetings since the participants are super busy and do not manage to work
> > on their action items in such a short period of time (sometimes not even
> > within a several month timeframe for trivial tasks).
> >
> > I do, however, understand the challenge to regularly sync up with
> > co-authors and other interested parties and at the same time to meet the
> > requirements outlined by the IESG for holding official meetings.
> >
> > I don't have a good suggestion either and this topic should probably be
> > brought up with the IESG (or at least with the chairs).
>
> I don't think the IETF has a codified procedure for what we are doing
> with CoRIM.  In that sense, what we are running is not an "official"
> meeting.  And I don't think we are doing anything that goes against
> the IETF ethos.  On the contrary, the intention is to make the
> document editing phase as transparent as possible and to smooth out
> the collection of requirements and feedback.  As far as the IETF
> process goes, as long as we advance the document and report
> periodically (at least at every f2f meeting) we are OK.
>
> > > On 03.01.24 17:02, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> > > > I am suggesting instead to schedule official virtual interim
> meetings to
> > > > discuss the many topics the group has to deal with. During the IETF
> f2f
> > > > meetings there is just not enough time to go into any level of
> detail.
> > > > Since I am not one of the RATS chairs I can only propose it.
>
> Personally, I am in favour of your proposal to have RATS WG interims,
> but that's orthogonal to our CoRIM weekly thing.
>
> cheers, thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>