IAB, It has been brought to my attention off-list that the link I supplied in my appeal message was not correctly copied and pasted and therefore did not work and that it might have been of help to you had I been more clear about what I would like the IAB to do. This update note is intended to correct that error and omission and provide some other links for your convenience. It does not change the substance of the appeal. Links (all now tested): The Interim Meeting Guidance statement referred to as the "Guidance Statement" in the appeal to you (2023-08-14): https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance/ My original appeal to the IESG (2023-08-15): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rXEBl6DmFUl8i9rBJYMM0c3SsT4/ The IESG response to that appeal (2023-08-24) (correcting the former link identified as [1] in the appeal to you): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v5MAgNfCv4d8AGAyfzauWR_3tl8/ My appeal to the IAB on Monday (2023-10-23): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/HOer0iird34kdOG0csFQPPyPAKE/ For completeness, the Appeal Procedures and the IAB's role in them appears in Section 6.5.2 of RFC 2026. Some language below is borrowed from that section. Desired IAB Action: As my appeal statement indicated in its division into "Original Appeal Issues" and "Higher-level/ More General Issues", I believe the IAB can approach the appeal and a response in two ways (identified as "Strategies" below). One is to focus on the narrower issues and ignore the more general one, while the other is to look, more architecturally in a way, at the general issues. I strongly prefer you do the latter because I think it would be better for the community. In particular, I have noticed unrest in the community about the application and scope of some other IESG Statements and believe looking only at the narrow issues is likely to lead to additional appeals the next time the IESG concludes that it is appropriate to expand upon or reinterpret an IETF Consensus procedural document, published in the RFC Series as a BCP, by drafting a Statement, soliciting comments on the draft Statement, and then publishing the Statement, especially if the latter is agreed to by an unrecorded vote. It is perhaps worth stressing that, while these two strategies represent broader and narrower scope, it is not clear which one is more or less drastic. Specifically, Broader/ More General Strategy: I request that the IAB review the specific situation with the Guidance Statement and work with the IESG to produce a new statement that, at least, requires AD notification of all plans for Interim Meetings (offline as well as online) and that allows community scrutiny, possibly at AD request, when WGs plan very large numbers of online interim meetings. I also request that the IAB, in a manner of its choosing, see that a process is initiated to determine how revisions and clarifications to BCP-level procedural documents that specify IETF procedures and structures should be handled, a process that will better ensure openness, fairness, and accountability of decision-makers. I assume, and hope the IAB will assume, that the result will parallel the procedures for developing and approving documents that standardize technical protocols and procedures (as outlined in RFC 2026 as amended) but will recognize the differences where technical matters (e.g., "technical viability") are not involved. Narrower Version, setting the higher-level issues aside for future discussion: I request that the IAB annul the IESG decision to approve and publish the 2023-08-14 "Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings" and its immediate predecessors on the grounds that the procedure of IESG drafting, IESG solicitation of comments, IESG review and adoption by an unrecorded vote, and IESG processing of any appeals, also by unrecorded vote, is inconsistent with principles of community development of documents, development and documentation of community consensus (including the IESG making determinations about that consensus by recorded vote) and the general principles of openness and fairness called for in RFC 2026 and elsewhere. Such an action would recognize that the IESG exceeded its authority in adopting both the Guidance Statement and the procedure used to review and publish it. I hope that, if this narrower version is chosen, that the IAB would also, in a manner of its own choosing, establish, or work with the IESG to establish, interim guidance on key issues within the scope of the Guidance Document and adhering as narrowly as possible to the rules of RFC 2418, guidance that can be applied until more permanent guidance can be developed through a more normal procedure, presumably starting with an Internet Draft building on and updating RFC 2418. thanks, john
