[Rfced-future] Issue 144

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

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.

###

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."

Peter