On 7/13/23 16:50, John C Klensin wrote:
I can propose some specific changes to the Guidance statement if
people think that would be justified, but the key question right
now is whether everyone is ok with the current situation,
including holding interim meetings on very short notice to
anyone outside the WG, without ADs having any responsibility to
be involved and sign off on them, without agendas at least a
week in advance, and/or very close to IETF f2f meetings.
John,
I have the same concerns you stated, and I'm NOT ok with the current
situation. I'll also note that some WGs will always want to find
reasons to exclude those "not in the club", for various reasons, and
therefore it's necessary to constantly watch WGs to see whether they're
using exclusionary tactics. Any claims of WG consensus by a group that
has actively excluded open participation, including by not announcing
meetings or by holding interim or virtual meetings in time or space
conflict with plenary meetings, or not getting explicit written approval
from their ADs, should be ignored.
And, of course, if we need to make changes, whether that is
appropriately done by asking the IESG to tune the Guidance
statement(s) or whether it is time to prepare an update for 2418
about this set of topics.
I favor the latter.
Keith
