--On Sunday, July 16, 2023 16:07 +1200 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 16-Jul-23 15:50, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >> Why is attending biweekly con calls exclusionary? > > It depends where one lives and whether one has a full-time > occupation. But really the point isn't there, it's whether the > result of such calls (which de facto are design team meetings, > not WG sessions) is brought back to a genuine WG plenary, > electronically or in person, for an effective debate. > > I'd probably be more comfortable if these meetings were > pitched as open design team meetings; that would make things > clearer. Brian, I probably would too, except that "open design team meeting" seems like a phrase that is likely to mean enough different things to enough different people (as much of the discussion subsequent to your posting may demonstrate) that it sets us on a path toward needing to do a comprehensive procedural overhaul. While I think it may be about time for that, experience (starting with NEWTRK and continuing) suggests that starting down that path does not lead to useful and substantive results in finite time. While I haven't thought about it enough to know if I agree, the model phb outlines would almost certainly require such a procedural overhaul even though one aspect of it would actually take us a step toward where we were 30-odd years ago. I would hope that no one would try to institute it by IESG Statement. Noting Carsten's comments in response to Abdussalam and Keith, it is likely that the use of Github should also point us toward a procedural overhaul, the existence of RFCs 8874 and 8875 either notwithstanding. Or it might be that their publication as Informational rather than as updates to RFc 2418 are symptomatic. Still, I hope we can keep those issues separate from issues about Interim meetings and the processes/ requirements to approve and hold them. Noting the (IMO useful) exchange between Joel and Keith about design teams, I believe one of our assumptions about them is that they are focused on a narrow range of topics and relatively short-lived. If a design team needs to meet regularly for months (or probably even weeks) and/overs a large fraction of the topics within the scope of the WG charter, it is either: (i) Indistinguishable from the WG itself except for fewer requirements for documentation and transparency. (ii) A sign that the WG was chartered prematurely and hence should be shut down until people are ready to propose a new charter and to get work done according to WG rules. It seems to me that the first is a singularly bad idea and the second, while appropriate, would be something for which the community has no willingness to move on (or the IETF doesn't, probably in part because they see no hope for community support). As an exercise, think about how many WGs we have seen shut down in the last decade because they were not actively progressing toward the goals of their charters, emitting quality documents into IETF Last Call, etc. Or did you have something else in mind? john
