Re: Interim (and other) meeting guidelines versus openness, transparency, inclusion, and outreach

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Agreed.  Design team decisions, of any kind of design team, are input to the working group, not something the working group is required to adopt, accept, or use.

Yours,

Joel

On 7/16/2023 9:26 AM, Keith Moore wrote:
On 7/16/23 09:06, Joel Halpern wrote:

IETF procedures explicitly allow for open and closed dsign teams.  They also allow for self-formed teasm and teams appointed by WG chairs.  There is very little procedural requirement on them.  Presumably, since the work is intended to be contribution to the IETF, the Note Well applies to design teams.

IN my experience, closed design teams formed for a specific purpose tend to work better than the alternatives.  But different WGs and different problems prompt different approaches.

While IETF does permit closed design teams, a danger of closed design teams is that they can, in practice, be used to coerce the WG into accepting poor decisions.

Decisions made by a design team still require rough consensus from the mailing list.   If the group is told by someone in authority (say the WG chair or document editor) that the design team's decisions are not negotiable or subject to revision, that's IMO a process violation.

Keith






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux