Re: [Rfced-future] Issue 144

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 06-Jan-22 13:41, Peter Saint-Andre 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.

Logically, that refers to non-interim meetings, i.e. meetings during IETF
weeks, but I agree that the phrasing is a bit odd. Fortunately RFC2418bis
is out of scope here :-).

    Brian