On 8/24/23 17:04, Rob Sayre wrote:
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.
So are rules preventing WG chairs from creating closed meetings.
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.
I have no problem with design teams, or with closed groups of authors, as long as the WG and IETF community as a whole are free to comment on their proposals, and free to contribute to consensus or not as they choose, and the consensus is evaluated by neutral facilitators (chairs or IESG as appropriate).
I have never been comfortable with telling a WG that it is required to use a particular document or work of a particular design team, as a basis for its work.
Designs need to be done by individuals or small groups. Design by large committees rarely work well, and certainly cannot be trusted to reflect the interests of broad user populations, without extensive open review and adaptation in light of such review.
But I don't personally recall any abuse of the design team process in my history of working with IETF. (Not saying it's never happened; I just don't recall seeing.)
I absolutely have seen closed WG meetings used as a way to abuse the process.
Keith
