[Rfced-future] RSWG meetings and IETF meetings (Re: Issue 144)

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

So far, this discussion seems to be going in the right direction.

However, I think it's unrealistic to imagine in-person RSWG meetings 
independent of IETF meetings; the travel costs would just not make 
sense. I think we should say so explicitly. That would also raise the 
question of funding, but we could probably assume that all the 
participants in the RSWG would attend some other WG or RG anyway.

Maybe this needs an additional issue.

Regards,   Martin.

On 2022-01-06 09:38, Scott Bradner wrote:
> maybe:
> "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 or hybrid meetings and at least two weeks in advance for all-online meetings."
> 
>> On Jan 5, 2022, at 7:24 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> 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.
>>
>> ###
>>
>> 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
>>
>> -- 
>> Rfced-future mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future
> 

-- 
Prof. Dr.sc. Martin J. Dürst
Department of Intelligent Information Technology
College of Science and Engineering
Aoyama Gakuin University
Fuchinobe 5-1-10, Chuo-ku, Sagamihara
252-5258 Japan