Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

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

On 06-Jan-22 13:24, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 1/3/22 5:39 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> On 1/3/22 5:19 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed this document and feel that it is generally
>>> in good shape. I have made a small editorial PR
>>> (https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148
>>> <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/pull/148>)
>>> and filed four issues. As I know some people don't like using
>>> Github, I recap them here.
>>>
>>>
>>> Issue 144: The current text seems to say that we would need
>>> WG consensus for any other mode of operation than a mailing
>>> list, including a meeting. I understand that people want
>>> to require consensus to use Github and I'm not trying
>>> to change that, but do we really need to require consensus
>>> to have a meeting?
>>> https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144
>>> <https://github.com/intarchboard/program-rfced-future/issues/144>
>>
>> I tend to think not.
> 
> Here is suggested text:
> 
> ###
> 
> When the RSWG is formed, all discussions shall take place on an
> open email discussion list, which shall be publicly archived. The
> RSWG is also empowered to hold in-person or online meetings. The RSWG
> may also decide by rough consensus to use additional tooling (e.g.,
> GitHub as specified in RFC 8874), forms of communication,
> and working methods (e.g., design teams) as long as they are
> consistent with RFC 2418.
> 
> ###

Works for me.

> 
> As Ekr and I discussed briefly in the GitHub issue, we might to say
> something about advance notice for meetings, along the lines of
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/
> (or perhaps should we just point there?). The most basic guidance might be:
> 
> "The RSWG is also empowered to hold in-person or online meetings, which
> shall be announced at least four weeks in advance for in-person meetings
> and at least two weeks in advance for online meetings."

We already cite 2418 which requires advance notice of meetings, so this may not be necessary. No objection, however.

    Brian
> 
> Peter
>