On 2023-10-23 the IAB received an appeal from John Klensin, and on 2023-10-25 received an update to the appeal with additional information. The appeal takes issue with the IESG’s response to his appeal regarding the IESG statement entitled “Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings” (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance/) published on 2023-08-14, which in turn was an update to a number of previous versions. John Klensin provided significant background about his concerns. In this appeal response we only quote and directly respond to the requested actions. We are responding both to his general requested actions, and to his more specific “narrower” points, starting with the two general requests: General request #1: 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. The IESG is the responsible body for the management of working groups and meetings and is therefore also responsible for how it handles its working group oversight responsibility, within the constraints of the community-defined structures in published IETF process RFCs. The IAB is not responsible for setting working group management processes. As such, if a change is desired in requirements about how the IESG should manage the working groups, those changes should come from the IETF community by way of a new RFC after a consensus-building process. Specific to the raised concern, the community-defined process for interim meetings is defined in Sections 3.1 and 7.1. of RFC2418. RFC2418 does not give further guidance on the need for AD notification or the frequency of interim meetings. If more precision is required on the notification and cadence of interim or in-person meetings, this needs to be done using a community-driven process that updates RFC2418. General request #2: 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. IESG statements reflect IESG consensus about the interpretation of processes specified in RFCs or about management processes applied by the IESG that are not specified in RFCs. As such, IESG statements can be useful tools for providing guidance to the community and transparency about the IESG’s implementation of their management processes. For IESG statements to be an effective communication tool for documenting IESG process clarifications, we believe publishing these statements should not be based on a heavy-weight community-consensus process. If the community disagrees with the interpretation documented in an IESG statement, the community can initiate process changes within the IETF’s general area. Instead of creating processes around the publications of IESG statements, we believe that the community could discuss and evaluate the need to modify the existing processes to ensure they best suit the current community’s needs. Narrow request #1: 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. As discussed above, we believe that any change involving how the IESG manages the working groups should come from the community and not from the IAB. Because IESG statements do not require community consensus and the process of issuing this revision to the “Guidance on In-Person and Online Interim Meetings” statement did not violate existing RFC policy, the IESG did not violate a process in publishing the statement and did not violate a process in handling the appeal. Further, RFC3710 explicitly does not set a general rule on how the IESG makes decisions. However, all formal decisions are minuted in the formal telechats that are open for observers to support the community principles of transparency. As an example, the IESG statement in question is listed in both the IESG 2023-08-10 teleconference minutes (https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2023/minutes-2023-08-10.txt) and the associated narrative minutes (https://www6.ietf.org/iesg/minutes/2023/narrative-minutes-2023-08-10.txt). As this appeal specifically covers the last two revisions of the IESG statement, the IAB reviewed these changes specifically and does not consider the change from past guidance substantive in the concerns raised about openness and fairness. We note that many of the issues raised in the appeal and being brought forward under this statement also previously existed in older version(s), some of which date back to 2008 and were not raised in an appeal. As such, annulling only the most recent update on the guidance may not actually have the desired effect. Narrow request #2: 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. As stated above, the IAB is not responsible for setting working group processes and reconfirms that the IESG has the responsibility of handling working group management. Therefore, if desired by the community, more substantial changes to the process and management of the IETF working groups should come as proposals from within the community itself and brought through the normal IETF procedures for producing RFCs that govern the IETF and associated structures. The IAB further reviewed all of the different versions of the “Guidance on In-Person and Online Meetings” and found them to be a series of changes that has kept pace with the expectations of current IETF participants, especially in light of increased hybrid participation in the past few years, which may be considered desirable to support increased diversity of participation and reduction of carbon emissions due to travel. We agree on the importance of an open, fair, and transparent process and encourage the community to propose and drive process updates whenever opportunities to improve openness, fairness and transparency are identified. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Original appeal: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/37 Addendum to appeal: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/38
