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

[Hannes Tschofenig <[e-mail]>]

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).


Ciao
Hannes


Am 03.01.2024 um 17:11 schrieb Henk Birkholz:
> On 03.01.24 17:02, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> Hi Henk,
>>
>>
>> the discussion started when Yogesh suggested I bring my comments up in
>> one of those meetings.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Decisions in virtual interim meetings require WG consensus. The CoRIM
> dezign meetings are targeting the steps before that, I think: to
> create contributions and proposals that than can be discussed in WG
> virtual interim meetings.
>
> I am not saying that WG virtual interim meetings are not useful! But
> agendas will most likely not be exclusive to CoRIM, as any WG work
> item can be part of an WG virtual interim meetings. The weekly CoRIM
> meetings that Yogesh announced are just a place for contributors to
> align contributions and proposals in order to expedite document
> progress. In other words, they are content-focus work meetings and and
> not about updates and reports to the WG.
>
>>
>>
>> Ciao
>>
>> Hannes
>>
>>
>> Am 03.01.2024 um 14:46 schrieb Henk Birkholz:
>>> TL;DR
>>> A few individuals meet on Wednesdays to work on TCG Dice Endorsement
>>> documents & IETF CoRIM documents (primarily IETF, atm) to work on
>>> contributions collaboratively.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Hannes,
>>>
>>> yes, you are correct. That is why MCR accidentally send a typo. We are
>>> actually calling them dezign meetings, due to that reason.
>>>
>>> Sorry - over the change of years I also kinda lost track about what
>>> problem we are trying to solve here in this thread.
>>>
>>> These meetings are orchestrated by individuals and have no official
>>> IETF or TCG flavor to it (although, if non-TCG members are present we
>>> cannot work on TCG projects due to by-laws), but nevertheless we
>>> thought it would be nice to announce those meetings and render them
>>> open to any interested party in support of transparent goal-driven
>>> collaboration.
>>>
>>> Hannes, if that was a mistake, we apologize! Alas, I am uncertain what
>>> to derive from your comments. Could you please clarify?
>>>
>>>
>>> Viele Grüße,
>>>
>>> Henk
>>>
>>> On 03.01.24 14:33, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 14.12.2023 um 18:50 schrieb Michael Richardson:
>>>>> Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>      > And these types of meetings are quite usual
>>>>> editors/contributors
>>>>>      > meetings - as we had, for example, with the RATS architecture
>>>>> starting
>>>>>      > with the formation of the RATS WG. I am pretty sure that is
>>>>> a-okay as
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed: these are design team meetings, and the results are subject
>>>>> to WG consensus.
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The working group chairs could create design teams, schedule interim
>>>> meetings, and do all sorts of other things. Unfortunately, they didn't
>>>> do so.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That ideally happens because new I-Ds are posted, and the diffs
>>>>> include
>>>>> high-level review of changes, and introduction to controversial
>>>>> issues onto
>>>>> the ML.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that what annoyed Hannes was the way that his suggestions
>>>>> seemed to
>>>>> be subject to design team veto (and dismissal), rather than
>>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>>>> In OAuth and SCITT the IESG noted that we have to be more inclusive
>>>> when
>>>> it comes to our meeting culture. They were correct in their criticism.
>>>> Everyone should, on a regular basis, think about how we could involve
>>>> more people in our discussions.
>>>>
>>>> The work in IETF groups benefits from broader involvement and you only
>>>> get those if you keep the entire group informed about the work.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ciao
>>>> Hannes
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT
>>>>> consulting )
>>>>>             Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> RATS mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RATS mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>
> _______________________________________________
> RATS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats