Martin, --On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 14:28 -0700 Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John, > > (1) and (2) the text specifically says. > > When considering whether to approve a hybrid interim, Area > Directors (ADs) are expected to balance these downsides with > the expected benefits. I'm not sure how you got from there to > the idea that these are called without AD approval. I also didn't say that about hybrids. But (1) was strictly about online interims. And the first bullet there, from which I partially quoted, reads: "The meetings are scheduled by the working group chairs, who should discuss their plans with the responsible area director well before any announcements need to be made." I cannot get from "should discuss" to a requirement for AD approval. Indeed, I cannot even get to a firm requirement for the discussion. For (2) and hybrid meetings I agree that there is a requirement for AD approval meetings. The text actually says that more than once and I don't believe I said anything to the contrary. My concern there was about how much approval an AD needed to make (or the level of involvement the AD was expected to have) in a regular series of meetings. > (3) I thought maybe we had misused the word, but: > adjective > > 1. > > of, relating to, or belonging as a part of the whole; > constituent or component:integral parts. > 2. > > necessary to the completeness of the whole:This point is > integral to his plan. > > I don't see how it's false at all when using the first > definition. We could quibble about the statement under the first definition, but it would definitely be false if interpreted the second way. At the risk of being facetious, using the first definition, a statement that "Cookies of any type are integral to the IETF way of working" would also be true... and the community has spent far more time discussing, consuming, and evaluating cookies than we have done, or been allowed to do, over interim meetings, at least since 2418 was published. This may go to my interpretation of one of Rich's points, which is that the document is not very well written. If it were a draft for an RFC, I'd expect the RPC to question that usage. > (4) Are you suggesting that the IESG unilaterally impose > limits on the frequency of interim meetings? I can't discern > any other proposed action from this portion of the appeal. No. I am suggesting that responsible ADs be both empowered and expected to engage with the WG and its leadership when the WG wants to schedule many interim meetings and ones that are regularly scheduled long in advance, considering whether those meetings are likely to become, or are becoming, a substitute for discussions (not just approval of decisions) on mailing lists. I note that, if a WG schedules an interim meeting months in advance (even by virtue of a prescheduled sequences of them), it is impossible to know whether the need for such a meeting is actually rooted in the criteria outlined in the document. I am suggesting that, if WGs reach the point where they are substituting interim meetings for mailing list discussions (and that includes making "are you ok with what was decided at the interim" requests to the mailing list), that the ADs should push back, possibly even no allowing future interims for the WG until the behavior is correct. That said, I also believe that ADs should be accountable for the behavior, openness, and inclusiveness of their WGs at least after participants call apparent problems to their attention. I gather the current IESG no longer believes that, but that is another reason why "statements" like this should be subject to community review and approval. > (5) The chairs of a Working Group approached the LLC for > Letters of Invitation. The IESG thought it would be more > user-friendly than "go publish an RFC to make us give you > one," but I guess no good deed goes unpunished. As you noted in your follow-up message, I explicitly exempted the LoI issue. That was partially because I consider it to lie very close to the IETF-LLC boundary and do not believe that this type of statement should get intertwined with that. However, my real (5) was that the guidelines, positions, and procedures described in this statement should be developed and approved by the community, not proclaimed by the IESG without community consultation. That issue is particularly important because the appeal from Ted Hardie and Alan Frindell that was discussed at the July plenary addressed essentially the same point about community involvement about guidelines of this sort. That appeal, as I read it, reflects positions about meeting mechanics and draws on RFC 8718. My concerns are more about meeting approval, community awareness of interim meetings, the balance between interim meetings and mailing lists and draws on RFC 2418, issues that I raised as possibly being treated as part of the Hardie-Frindell appeal a week before the plenary. I don't know how to make non-response to a "recognized" appeal part of another appeal, but it feels to me to be really inappropriate for the IESG, with an appeal in front of it about the process used to create and promulgate an earlier version of these guidelines and the lack of community involvement for that version to turn around and issue a new version of the guidelines, apparently without addressing those issues in any way. If there is some urgent problem that causes you to believe that the first appeal should be deferred, then I believe the community deserves a better explanation of those circumstances than "The IESG has issued a Statement...". Rich suggested withdrawing this statement pending community feedback. Ted and Alan suggested withdrawing the earlier version until after community involvement. I don't know how far back you would need to withdraw statements to get things to a stable state, but we should, IMO, be looking forward at how to get active community involvement and consensus around guidelines of this sort, modifying 2814 if needed rather trying to reinterpret or expand it by IESG internal decisions. best john > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:04 PM John C Klensin > <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> --On Tuesday, August 15, 2023 10:23 -0700 IESG Secretary >> <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > The IESG has issued a Statement on Guidance on In-Person and >> > Online Interim Meetings: >> > >> > 14 August 2023 >> > >> > This statement provides IESG guidance on hybrid and online >> > interim IETF working group (WG) meetings. >> > >> > Read more: >> > >> > https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-m >> > eet ings-guidance/ >> >> >> >> IESG, >> >> (I am bypassing the normal procedure of a discussion with the >> IETF Chair before creating an appeal because there was a >> discussion with him about some of the issues in the prior >> version of the guidelines, including a request that those >> issues be considered as part of another appeal and any >> resulting rewriting. Most of those have not been addressed >> and are reiterated below.) >> >> While I appreciate the effort to update this document, this >> revision raises several concerns (most raised earlier and not >> addressed) in addition to including a key statement, >> apparently as justification, that I do not believe to be true. >> >> (1) The guidelines for online interim meetings now read as if >> they can reasonably be run as effectively closed sessions, >> announced only to those who happen to be on the mailing list >> of that WG. There is not even a requirement to let the >> responsible AD know that the meeting is being scheduled (the >> text says "should discuss" which would not be requirement >> even if "should" were in upper case). That is less open than >> we usually require, exclusionary of those who are not very >> active WG participants, potentially hostile to newcomers, >> and, most important, undermines the traditions of encouraging >> IETF participants to look in on WGs in which they are not >> actively participating and hence undermining cross-area >> reviews prior to IETF Last Call except when WG Chairs >> explicitly ask for those reviews. There are more quibbles >> about that section including about timing of the "reminders" >> for recurring meetings. >> >> (2) For hybrid meetings, the decision as to whether "extended >> sequences" of such meetings are needed and acceptable appears >> to be left entirely to the WG, even though, unlike online >> meetings, AD approval of some type is required (but, for a >> sequence, it is not clear what the AD has to approve). That >> raises most of the same issues as above. >> >> (3) The statement "Interim meetings of any type are integral >> to the IETF way of working," is, AFAICT, false. Every WG >> that has managed to get through all of its work in the last >> quarter-century without holding even one interim meeting is a >> counterexample. Perhaps it is the intention of the IESG to >> change that or perhaps the IESG is just adjusting to trends in >> that direction, but those would be rather fundamental changes, >> for which see the next two items. >> >> (4) We can repeat the requirements of RFC 2418 (especially >> Section 3.2) as often as we like but the reality is that, >> especially if a WG moves to regularly scheduled and frequent >> interim meetings, those meetings (and not mailing lists) are >> almost certain to become the primary discussion venue for the >> WG. In many cases (and I think I have seen examples), if a WG >> becomes used to working that way, "reviewed and confirmed on >> the mailing list" becomes a note to the mailing list saying >> something close to "the interim decided XYZ; anyone with >> serious objections should speak up". >> >> (5) Almost separate from the above, but equally or more >> important, portions of this document are essentially an update >> or reinterpretation of RFC 2418. As such, with the probable >> exception of the discussion of visas and meeting invitations, >> establishing policies like those outlined by an internal IESG >> discussion and IESG Statement violates principles about >> community decision-making established in the wake of the Kobe >> incident as well as the provisions of BCP 9 (RFC 2026 and >> updates). This policy document should be presented to the >> community in I-D form, discussed and revised as needed, and >> then subjected to IETF Last Call. Unless the IESG believes >> that it can fairly and objectively evaluate Last Call >> comments on a document that it wrote and approved, it should >> devise some other way for the Last Call to be evaluated such >> as handoff to the IAB. >> >> thanks, >> john >> >>
