Carsten, Thanks. Three observations, one partially inspired by your later note: (1) Whether we have "slipped yet" possibly depends on how one defines "slipped", especially because it is very easy for people to confuse "I don't like the results of that WG's work" with "there must have been process problems because no open, diverse technically, and fair could have come up with results like that". (2) Circumstances and WGs undoubtedly differ, but as a general principle, I think we should worry that a WG that is holding bi-weekly interims is, however unintentionally, being non-inclusive, just because of the time zone issues and the high time commitment for those specific times in multiple weeks. Better if the days of the week and times are rotated, but still an issue. That does not mean frequent interims are never justified; it does imply to me that the reasons why it is the best alternative should be clearly documented and reviewed outside the WG. In general, I agree with you about WG chairs and ADs getting things right, but that depends to some degree on the chairs having different perspectives and the AD watching and being engaged. At the other extreme, if an AD is overextended and operating in "trust the WG chairs" mode and the WG chairs have either delegated the issues to one of their number or are acting as echo chambers for each other, the angle and friction level of that slope can be fairly uncomfortable. (3) Tranquility in a WG can arise from a whole range of different situations. At one extreme, active participants may represent a wide range of experience and perspectives and be working smoothly together to resolve differences, find appropriate balance among tradeoffs, etc. That is, at least IMO, fairly close to an IETF ideal. At the other, a WG and its discussions can become tranquil and efficient because all alternate perspectives and dissenting views have dropped out of the discussions (or not been involved in the first place). That does not require any malice. It could occur accidentally by excessive dependence on interim meetings, especially ones are have schedules inconvenient to some. It could be that the only ones who care enough about a WG's subject matter represent a small range of perspectives or even a small set of organizational interests. The effect can be as exclusionary as a deliberate effort to make the WG inhospitable to anyone who disagrees with its leadership. However, that sort of homogeneity leads to tranquility too. best, john --On Friday, July 14, 2023 00:34 +0200 Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John, > > thank you for this wakeup call. > > I agree that we are on a slippery slope with interims. > > I also believe that we haven't slipped yet. > > I base that on the two WGs that I participate in regularly > that have bi-weekly interims. This rhythm means that agendas > that follow up on one meeting to prepare the next cannot be > ready weeks in advance, which would mean right after each > previous meeting. In one WG, we were slipping a bit late with > the agenda and have since managed to move that back a bit. We > still allow fine tuning the agenda, but I don't think we > would accept that if there were disagreement (and agenda > bashing right at the start of a meeting is another > long-standing tradition). > > So my summary would be to keep "doing the right thing": > I.e., keep in mind that it's easy to have order deteriorate, > and stop that when we see that happening. > > New rules are unlikely to help; they are more likely to make > the meetings inefficient. > > Of course, all WGs are different, so what I'm seeing may not > be what you are seeing; maybe something more drastic is needed > in other places. In my corner of the IETF, I have a lot of > trust in the WG chairs and ADs getting this right. > > Grüße, Carsten >
