Hi Rich, I’m sympathetic to what you are saying, but there is at least one point of overgeneralization. (We have to actively remind ourselves again and again that WGs *are* different.) On 15. Aug 2023, at 22:14, Salz, Rich <rsalz=40akamai.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Is an interim-only WG that never meets at the regular meetings acceptable to this IESG? I highly doubt it would be acceptable to the larger IETF community, but without community involvement in this statement or 2418bis, we'll never know. It always helps to discuss questions like this not only from general principles, but also with respect to running code. The cellar WG runs exactly like this, and it is generally considered a rather successful WG. This WG needs to draw in some rather special talent, and the interim-only approach works best for that. Clearly, this specialty subject makes cellar's interim-only proceedings more palatable to the larger IETF community than it would be for, say, a WG that redesigns DNS. So, if we wanted it, maybe we would have to make a “meet at IETFs, occasionally” mandate more specific than summarily excluding interim-only WGs. Grüße, Carsten
