Magnus, Commenting only on the general issues. I think the particular NFSv4 situation is important only insofar as it prompts some review, clarification, and adjustment of policies.... --On Thursday, July 9, 2020 07:45 +0000 Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >... > 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. I don't know when it changed (or just feel out of memory and into disuse), but there used to be a rather strong prohibition against interim WG meetings (teleconference, f2f, or a mix) within a few weeks of IETF meetings and, IIR, within a month or two of IETF meetings if the WG was meeting at those EITF-wide meetings. The reason, IIR, was less about WG effectiveness than about IETF effectiveness and, in particular, promotion of cross-WG and cross-area review and discussions (not just "team" reviews during IETF Last Calls. I don't know how to preserve the parts of the cross-area review that depend on reactions "hey, I'm here anyway and I'm vaguely interested in that or am working on things that might overlap with it, so I'll sit in on their meeting and see what I can learn". However, because one of the important things that has distinguished the IETF from other SDOs is precisely the quality of cross-area interactions and reviews, I don't think we should give it up without some awareness and thought. FWIW, we've never (AFAIK) had formal liaisons among WGs, but the equivalent is exactly what many other SDOs do to try to cover interactions and overlaps. The need for them becomes part of the chartering process and in frequent reviews thereafter. If we can't figure out an equivalent to that old expectation of people wondering into meetings of mostly (but not entirely) unrelated WGs and paying attention (e.g., not just doing email), then maybe we should be thinking about adapting those liaison ideas [1]. > 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-meet > ings-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. First, following the comments above, I think we may need to distinguish between a virtual interim (between meetings as part of plenary IETF meetings) and virtual substitutes for meetings at/during those IETF meetings. If I want to loosely track what a WG is doing (e.g., because its work might easily wander into an area in which I have interest and expertise even if that is not clearly in-charter or in-scope) so I can determine whether I need to object or pay more careful attention, then there is huge difference between: * spending an hour or two three times a year listening in on a meeting and following up as needed and * following the mailing list, reading many or most of the documents, and participating in whatever WG-specific (aka "interim" -- that very term may need review) meetings are held. That situation really doesn't change if the main IETF meetings are online because I can look at a consolidated agenda for those meetings rather than needing to notice that a particular WG didn't sign up for a slot and then figure out what they are using as a substitute. >... > 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. If one focuses almost exclusively on active WG participants, I think you are probably correct. If one is also interested in people who might want to drop in and maintain a general sense of what is going on, maybe not. > 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. Yes. But, as you imply, regularizing this a bit so there is no confusion (and fewer accidental omissions or late discoveries) would probably be A Good Thing. > 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/4Xp3RYZm1v > fboV0ivnB7xucjkhY/ But that is a one week window. I think the discussion above justified a look at a somewhat wider one... especially for those cases that are "instead of meeting at IETF" rather than "in addition to". Just my opinion of course. >... best, john [1] We have formally recognized one of those areas of potential overlap that requires intermittent, but not necessarily continuous, monitoring by experts outside WGs. We recognize the security issues may affect almost everything, require Security Considerations sections in any I-D that is going to be considered by the IETF and review those sections carefully, etc. However, security is not the only one: In the last decade or two, I've gotten particularly sensitive to internationalization (i18n) issues (and we have an "Internationalization Considerations" section requirement that is observed much less often than might be desirable) and I think there are others that are less broadly pervasive than security and i18n but no less important for the work that is affected. The thing that makes security special --and our dealing with security issues in non-Security Area WGs more effective-- is that it _is_ an area, with a couple of experts on the IESG. For the others, we need to either rely on all ADs knowing what is going on in every WG outside their areas (a profoundly unrealistic idea) or we need to rely on the community to spot things. For the latter, everything we can reasonably do about broad notice of meetings, etc. (without that process becoming disruptive or high-noise) is probably worth looking at. Recognizing the burden it would impose on ADs and therefore understanding the practical tradeoffs, I have been wondering whether we should be thinking about restoring the old practice of regular reports from each Area to the community for the same reason.
