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

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

Hello Lars,

On 2022-01-10 16:31, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2022-1-7, at 2:35, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Something like this:
>>
>> The RSWG is empowered to hold in-person or online-only meetings,
>> which should be announced with sufficient notice to enable broad
>> participation; the [IESG Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim
>> Meetings](https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/)
>> provides a reasonable baseline. In-person meetings should include
>> provision for effective online participation for those unable to
>> to attend in person.
> 
> with regards to meeting during the IETF week, that agenda is under the overall control of the IESG.
> 
> If the RSWG chairs would decide to request for an unreasonable amount of meeting time or make other requests that are difficult/costly/etc. to fulfill, is the IESG authorized to decline those requests?

Good points. I think that yes, with respect to meeting time, the RSWG 
should be treated like an IETF WG or an IRTF RG. I can't imagine what 
difficult/costly requests they would make, but again, they shouldn't be 
special. Also, for costs, my guess is that ultimately the LLC is 
responsible, which brings everything together.

The reason I suggested that in-person meetings be collocated was that it 
will be way cheaper than having an independent meeting, and will attract 
more people to the work of the RSWG. I can't imagine any other 
collocation that would work better. The only problem might be that it 
wouldn't attract any 'outside customers' of the RFC Series, but pretty 
much any alternative would have the same problem.

Regards,   Martin.

> Thanks,
> Lars
>