On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 07:45:31AM +0000, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > 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. Fully agreed. Are you taking on responsibility for getting https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/interim/ updated accordingly ? > 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. Sure. I was just trying to explain the process and suggest workaround. Updating processes to make them better is always a great option too ;-)) Cheers Toerless > Cheers > > Magnus Westerlund > TSV AD responsible for NFSv4 WG -- --- tte@xxxxxxxxx
