Hi Keith,
I don't think it is right for IETF to depend to wait for some one to appeal/comment (on the mailing-lists or at meeting site) to help correct/remind the ietf-process/WG/IESG, but will want a policy-system that can track very easily any abuse, or any wrong decision which does not follow IETF policies.
On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 11:36 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
The RFC2418 needs more updates with the use of AI technology.
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).
Agree the team designs only for part of the work to be proposed/discussed by the community/WG
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.
We may never see it, but it is possible invisible per our policy, because there may be no way to find out per IETF Area with incomplete tracking knowledge/tools.
Designs need to be done by individuals or small groups.
We already have the small authors/editing team but the DT is more special for some reasons. Usually authors are part of DT.
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.)
That is good because IMHO usually DT proposals are accepted by WGs.
I absolutely have seen closed WG meetings used as a way to abuse the
process.
Was that reported so far? If not, we may need to report that even if it was a long time ago, because we need to help make information trackable within IETF, and to make better processes.
AB
