Lars, In the hope both of saving the IESG some time (and possibly a separate appeal) and that Ted and Alan will consider this acceptable, at least two of the topics that have been discussed in the recent thread on the IETF list titled "Interim (and other) meeting guidelines versus openness, transparency, inclusion, and outreach" are "other issues with the text" as described in the appeal. I suggest the IESG consider them along with the appeal and any actions arising from it. In particular, (1) For fully online interim meetings, is the comment about WG chairs consulting the relevant AD a general suggestion that can be ignored if the chairs consider it, e.g., inconvenient, or is it a requirement, possibly even a requirement that which the AD must approve the meeting (or a multiple-meeting plan)? (2) For online and in-person/hybrid meetings, are the provisions, including advance notice timing, for notice of the meeting to the IETF community and posting of agendas to (at least) the WG list requirements or advisory? If they are requirements, under what circumstances (if any) is a meeting allowed to be held if they are not met? For reasons very similar to those raised in the appeal, it is important that the rules be clear and that they be subject to public consideration and represent community consensus, not just a periodically adjusted IESG position. thanks, john --On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 18:40 +0300 Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Ted and Alan, > > I confirm receipt of your appeal. > > Thanks, > Lars > > On Jul 19, 2023, at 17:17, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> Dear IESG, >> >> The undersigned write to appeal the current Guidance on >> in-Person and Online meetings >> (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-me >> etings-guidance/). >> >> Remedy requested: >> >> The current guidance should be reverted to the previous >> guidance and a proposal for updated procedures brought to the >> community in an appropriate venue. MTGVENUE seems like an >> appropriate place to discuss this, but a new list or other >> designated venue would be fine. >> >> Background: >> >> The MoQ working group chairs requested the Secretariat to >> provide letters of invitation for an interim meeting to be >> held in Seattle, Washington in January of 2023. The >> Secretariat referred the matter to the IESG, which failed to >> render a timely decision; it eventually instructed the >> Secretariat to decline, but at a time so late that the >> decision had long been moot. >> >> The IESG then promulgated the updated guidance on January >> 27th of 2023. While members of the IESG have stated that >> they believe that this was a clarification of existing >> guidance, issues were raised with the language as early as >> January 29th of 2023. Among the most serious of these >> concerns is the following text: >> >> "If invitation letters are required for visa purposes, the >> host of the meeting needs to be able to issue those to all >> interested in-person participants." >> >> This fails to recognize that interim meetings may take place >> without a host, and it binds those with a host to making a >> significant legal commitment which may not be possible (e.g. >> if an "interested in-person participant" comes from a country >> under sanction by the host's jurisdiction). >> >> There are other issues with the text, among them its failure >> to recognize that "in-person" meetings are now by default >> hybrid, with full support of MeetEcho or similar facilities. >> There is an additional ambiguity in this text: "The proposed >> meeting venue should also be accessible without participants >> needing to sign non-disclosure-agreements (NDAs) or similar >> agreements." as it is not clear on whether agreeing to abide >> by a code of conduct at a venue is a "similar agreement". >> >> These issues were raised again at the plenary of IETF 116, >> and the IESG agreed at the time to bring it back to the >> community after discussion at their retreat in May of 2023 >> (see https://youtu.be/LRRMKm4tXIc?t=6140 for Lars agreeing >> that after the retreat the IESG would bring it to the >> community). >> >> The IESG has not brought it back to the community. When a >> private request for clarification was made to the IESG, the >> response given was that it had been discussed but that the >> IESG intends to promulgate a new set of guidelines without >> community discussion. >> >> The undersigned believe that this is both contrary to their >> public commitment and contrary to the interests of the >> community. The choice of the community to carry out a >> working group process and publish an RFC on meeting venue >> guidance is a strong indication that meeting mechanics are a >> topic where community input is required. RFC 8718 has >> nuanced guidance on some aspects of this, and the IESG >> guidance in the document cited above does not, in the opinion >> of the undersigned, follow its guidance in considering >> trade-offs. A conversation with the community on why this >> should be different seems warranted. >> >> Thank you for your attention and we look forward to a >> resolution of this matter and a public conversation on a >> proposed updated set of guidelines. >> >> best regards, >> >> Ted Hardie >> Alan Frindell >
