Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Thu, 06 January 2022 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <sob@sobco.com>
X-Original-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 256413A1044 for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:38:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP=0.002, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DzVgM9AYkvZl for <rfced-future@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (173-166-5-71-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6141D3A1068 for <rfced-future@iab.org>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 16:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (golem.sobco.com [136.248.127.162]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E1CD1109610E; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 19:38:23 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <53497e97-ed65-93c8-5f4c-3f4ee9943501@stpeter.im>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 19:38:23 -0500
Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, rfced-future@iab.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FBE56AF3-8E2A-43D1-920B-F3F1EA6C6CD4@sobco.com>
References: <CABcZeBO3-q+SMTFNZyeC50eghFs1CJNSLojmr1Zip1g_nsGZHQ@mail.gmail.com> <d7ce7879-2324-69d1-0770-e104aff6c68c@stpeter.im> <53497e97-ed65-93c8-5f4c-3f4ee9943501@stpeter.im>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rfced-future/McZgh2Va4ljj06GkRyxe4mTb-dM>
Subject: Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144
X-BeenThere: rfced-future@iab.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: RFC Editor Future Development Program <rfced-future.iab.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/options/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rfced-future/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfced-future@iab.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future>, <mailto:rfced-future-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:38:30 -0000

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 <stpeter@stpeter.im> 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
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future