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

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

On 1/5/22 8:43 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Thursday, January 6, 2022 11:53 +0900 "Martin J. Dürst"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> So far, this discussion seems to be going in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> However, I think it's unrealistic to imagine in-person RSWG
>> meetings independent of IETF meetings; the travel costs would
>> just not make sense. I think we should say so explicitly. That
>> would also raise the question of funding, but we could
>> probably assume that all the participants in the RSWG would
>> attend some other WG or RG anyway.
> 
> Martin,
> 
> Yes, but...
> 
> If we are going to go in this direction and spell that out, we
> also need to be clear that RSWG f2f meetings, with IETF or not,
> must have provision for effective offsite/online participation.
> In addition to all the usual reasons (with or without the
> pandemic), we want to be very sure that we don't exclude the
> non-IETF users/ customers for the RFC Series from the RSWG.
> While my expectations that many (or even a few) of them will
> actively participate are very low, doing anything that blocks
> their participation would be really bad news.

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/interim-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.