On 17-Aug-23 05:04, Keith Moore wrote:
On 8/16/23 08:43, Salz, Rich wrote:
The point I was trying to make, is that "we don't know" what the IETF community thinks about the general concept of never meeting at one of the regular meetings. That's not an argument against CELLAR; I was trying to make an argument for community involvement in deciding what the principles and code, if you will, should be.
However, there have been a handful of never-actually-meeting WGs for many, many years, and no resulting appeals or disasters as far as I know. So I'd be very surprised if the community consensus was that this is a Bad Thing. Indeed it would be odd for the community that practically invented "on-line" to object to on-line-only decision-taking.
Rather, in these days of carbon-awareness, I'd expect the community to be highly supportive.
Concur. We used to use regular physical space meetings, in part, to
keep the community in some degree of sync as to overall goals, and to
minimize the amount of cross-area conflict. Those are still good
things, but it's also possible that conditions have changed enough in
the past few decades that a somewhat different strategy is needed.
What's abundantly clear is that IESG should not be making such decisions
unilaterally.
Of course. But the pathway there is clear enough - either propose a significant recharter of shmoo or a BOF. Doing it by an iterative process of IESG Statements and formal appeals does not seem optimal to me.
Brian
