Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

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

On 1/5/22 5:37 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 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.

RFC 2418 says:

    Interim meetings are subject to the
    same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,
    and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

However, I don't see exactly where it talks about advance notification 
for "other working group meetings". I must be missing something obvious.

Peter