Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
However, I don't see exactly where it talks about advance notification for "other working group meetings". I must be missing something obvious.

7.1. Session documents

   All relevant documents to be discussed at a session should be
   published and available as Internet-Drafts at least two weeks before
   a session starts.  Any document which does not meet this publication
   deadline can only be discussed in a working group session with the
   specific approval of the working group chair(s).  Since it is
   important that working group members have adequate time to review all
   documents, granting such an exception should only be done under
   unusual conditions.  The final session agenda should be posted to the
   working group mailing list at least two weeks before the session and
   sent at that time to agenda@ietf.org for publication on the IETF web
   site.

> On Jan 5, 2022, at 7:41 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> -- 
> Rfced-future mailing list
> Rfced-future@iab.org
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/rfced-future