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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Monday, January 10, 2022 09:31 +0200 Lars Eggert
<[e-mail]> 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/i
>> nterim-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?

Lars,

Having read Martin's later note but finding this more convenient
for a reply...

As you certainly know, the other reason why the IESG controls
the agenda is to mitigate nasty conflicts that would prevent key
people from attending.  That topic is not addressed in
https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/
(cited in Peter's draft) because it is strictly about Interim
Meetings.  I assume that the IESG (or at least a relevant AD if
they were in the same Area) would intervene if two WG Interims
were scheduled for the same time slot.  That statement does not
say that, it might be worth the IESG taking another look.

Wrt f2f meetings during the IETF week (not covered by that
statement at all), while I think not treating this the same way
an IAB open meeting or an IRTF meeting is treated would rapidly
lead to such conflicts, my impression is that the IESG and the
Secretariat gave up control of "side meetings" that do not use
IETF-provided space (but are not on the agenda) some years ago.  

So we actually have four cases during the meeting week:

 (1) IETF WG meetings (covered by the referenced
	statement)
 (2) Other meetings that are subject to IESG approval
	that appear on the (main) agenda (not covered by the
	referenced statement but subject to IESG approval)
 (3) Other meetings that use IETF resources (obviously
	subject to Secretariat and/or LLC approval).  Most of
	these show up on supplements to the agenda even though
	no formal procedure requires such supplements and I'm
	not sure all of them do.  I don't know how much the IESG
	is consulted about the scheduling of such meetings, but
	hope you are at least aware of them and able to offer
	advice.   Note that, for example, IAB breakfasts and
	assorted Area meetings probably fall into this category.

There is also a fourth case:

(4) Meetings that occur around the IETF week but outside its
nominal time slots.  In addition to assorted breakfast and lunch
slots that would fall into (3) above, I'm thinking about evening
or dinner meetings that do not draw on IETF resources and that
occur after the last meeting time on the agenda and, more
important, after the last slot on Friday.

Because (3) may fall outside of IESG authority although within
that of the LLC and (4) presumably falls outside the authority
of either, Peter's rather simple draft text and reference to
that statement are clearly (at least to me) insufficient for
reasons beyond those you suggest.  Probably an explicit comment
should be made that the scheduling of such meetings should
("MUST" ?) be coordinated with the IESG and LLC.  What I don't
know is whether it is necessary to get into "approved".  Doing
so would significantly clutter the lines of authority so I hope
that, if everyone knows about the meetings of everyone else, it
is reasonable to assume that good sense would be sufficient to
prevent conflicts of schedules and of other types.

best,
   john
                                            .