Hi, (BCC only for NFSv4) So the WG and I have been aware of the scheduling of this Interim since the 18th of June when it was finalized. The agenda was provided to the WG 10 days in advance. The fact that this was scheduled when it was, i.e. a bit more than 2 weeks before an IETF meeting was to ensure that the WG would make progress and have an effective meeting. Something that was less sure if the WG had scheduled during the IETF 108. I was aware of this and approved it. The failure here has been to get the meeting into the datatracker so that it was announced to the broad IETF community. Which looking at the IESG statement: https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/ is not required for virtual interrims. But, something that clearly has its point and I am happy to discuss that further with the community and IESG if the general rules should be so that this is required. Unfortunately that the meeting wasn't in the datatracker wasn't noticed until one of the WG chairs was attempting to upload the material. For that we can't other than appologize. At this stage I don't see how declaring this a just an informal meeting will actually help. Especially as the WG hasn't in fact broken current set of rules. So I think there are still important difference between F2F and virtual Interims due to the additional costs related to travel and where sufficient advance notice is required to ensure that people can attend. So I think that do motivate a difference between 2 and 4 weeks prior announcenemnt. I think requiring public announcement for both F2F and virtual Interrim meetings is probably something we should do. Especially as getting the datatracker to be able to store minutes and slides requires the meeting to have been scheduled. So in reality I would guess that almost all WG have been doing this anyway. Blackout periods around the IETF meetings is something we can definitely discuss more. I know the IESG are interested in hearing the communities view of these. We did make a decision very recently for IETF 108 that was announced on the 2nd of July: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/4Xp3RYZm1vfboV0ivnB7xucjkhY/ Toerless, considering that the current set of rules are such that one is not required to announce a virtual interrim to the whole of IETF, it is not a surprise that the tooling doesn't enforce things. We also need to consider what needs for exceptions there exists. But clearly the tool should warn about failures to adhere to current rules. Cheers Magnus Westerlund TSV AD responsible for NFSv4 WG
