Lars Eggert <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> (for the IESG) wrote:
> We therefore do not see any issues regarding the openness,> inclusivity, accessibility to new participants or the ability of the
> broader IETF community to observe interim meetings arising from the
> revision of the IESG statement in question.
I think the IESG statement, the appeal, and the IESG response here missed an important aspect of RFC2418. Guidelines helping to prevent WG chairs from unintentionally creating closed meetings are good.
However, RFC2418 also allows design teams (RFC2418, Section 6.5), and those can be closed and private. So, it's really left up to the chairs (and AD). I think most IETF people will default to openness, but it's not required.
thanks,
Rob
