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

[Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>]

Hi Roman,

thanks! You summed that up pretty well, I think.


Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 04.01.24 19:08, Roman Danyliw wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I'm jumping in deep in the thread and not specifically responding to only a single message.  I want to clarify a few process items as questions arose without setting WG direction without the WG chairs.
> 
> I'll reiterate as others have said that design teams have some process and structure requirements. https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/design-teams/ summarizes it best.  Practically, design teams typically get commissioned by the WG chairs.  It appears that the back and forth on this thread acknowledges that what has been happening with the "CoRIM meetings" is not a design team, despite being initially referenced as such.
> 
> Editors on a document meeting regularly without structure is acceptable.  It doesn't need to be a design team.  Of course, design teams or otherwise need to bring changes back to the WG for discussion.  If there is broader interest from those beyond the editors, this seems like it should be assessed.
> 
> The subtext I am reading into this thread is that there is interest and energy to engage more on particular document (e.g., CoRIM) beyond the venues currently afforded (officially it's only the mailing list and the face-to-face meetings).  Multiple parties have said they want to be engaged in a way that informal process do not allow.  This strongly suggests to me we may need more formal facilitated engagement which would include options like virtual interims or elevating informal activities into design teams (irrespective of coordinating editors might be doing).  My unnuanced bottom line is that if a subset of the WG needs a venue to more frequently talk about the topics, let's find that right venue and cadence.  Let me check in with the WG chairs who haven't had a chance to comment here.  If I'm missing something, please let me know on-list or in private.
> 
> Roman
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: RATS <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of lgl island-resort.com
>> Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:25 PM
>> To: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: Ira McDonald <[e-mail]>; Thomas Fossati
>> <[e-mail]>; Hannes Tschofenig
>> <hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail]>; Michael Richardson
>> <[e-mail]>; Yogesh Deshpande
>> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [Rats] Meeting culture ... Re: CoTS and CoRIM
>>
>> Warning: External Sender - do not click links or open attachments unless you
>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>
>>
>> Yogesh’s meeting announcement gives this as the agenda:
>>
>> 1. Progress draft.
>> 2. Discuss and resolve issues.
>> RATS members are welcome to attend this meeting.
>>
>> So:
>> - I personally missed the announcement. We are all invited. My bad.
>> - This agenda sounds like a design meeting per IETF guidelines IRA posted.
>> Calling it by another name doesn’t change that.
>>
>> Personally, since the beginning or RATS, I’ve felt there were background
>> meetings I didn’t have easy access to. I was surprised. When I participated in
>> S/MIME back in the 90’s it never felt like that. The COSE and CBOR WG don’t
>> feel like that.
>>
>> IMO, being a bit more open with these sorts of meetings (more regular invites,
>> posting notes and such) would create a more friendly environment in the RATS
>> WG.
>>
>> LL
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2024, at 10:06 AM, Henk Birkholz
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ira,
>>>
>>> maybe I did not spell that out clearly enough: we are not calling them design
>> meetings at all. The phrasing "dezign meeting" was intended to lighten the
>> mood in this thread a bit and is borrowed from the exact same discussion in
>> NETCONF years ago. I apologize for the confusion!
>>>
>>>
>>> Viele Grüße,
>>>
>>> Henk
>>>
>>> On 04.01.24 18:03, Ira McDonald wrote:
>>>> 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/
>> <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 WG Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer
>>>> Working Group Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
>>>> IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB Blue Roof Music / High
>>>> North Inc http://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] <mailto:[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]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>     Hi Hannes,
>>>>     On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 13:12, Hannes Tschofenig
>>>>     <hannes.tschofenig=[e-mail]
>>>>     <mailto:[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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats
>>>>     <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