Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

I think this issue is more about a starting point.  We've already said 
the group could set its own modalities, b



On 06.01.22 21:52, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, January 7, 2022 09:08 +1300 Brian E Carpenter
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On 07-Jan-22 06:12, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>> *>* I suspect others may feel differently in that they don't
>>> want this to be subject to changed IETF policies.
>>>
>>> I'd really like to hear from people who feel this as to
>>> what and why. I was just assuming this is like a WG in its
>>> behavior, and perhaps my assumption is completely wrong.
>   
>> No, but it *isn't* an IETF WG and should be able to opt out of
>> an IETF rule change that isn't appropriate. Analogy: each RFC
>> stream decides its own IPR policy; the fact that streams have
>> so far decided to follow the IETF policy doesn't change that
>> independence.
> Right.  But those streams have each made affirmative decisions
> to do so, more or less on a policy by policy basis.

So have we.  Group modalities have been discussed in great detail over a 
number of issues.  This issue was about whether we overly constrained 
meeting scheduling.  There seems to be consensus on call by value to 
relax the text slightly so that chairs can do meeting scheduling.  
That's pretty much it.

Eliot