Hi Keith,
On Sat, Jul 15, 2023 at 11:55 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 7/15/23 16:22, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
I emphatically disagree. That's a great way for WGs to become echo chambers and to exclude broad participation. Again, any WG that is doing this should be shut down, or at least suspended.1) Having virtual interims is a welcome development. My strong preference is for bi weekly virtual conference calls.
I agree that *Interim_Group* excludes the WG_participants, it become a new IETF way of exclusion, before 10 years I seen what they called Design_Team, as experts to solve a specific problem which that team's discussion doesn't appear in the WG_lists, Does our procedure allow that? if it does it should change to include a report of all agreement and disagreement of that team. However,
Design_team seems better solution because it is remote as similar to interim_group, but it is different that interim is trying to become the WG without doing the procedure of ietf_design_team, and that this interim_meeting becomes a WG_meeting having to discuss what cannot be discussed in design_team.
Regards
AB
