Hi John,
At 09:22 PM 22-03-2024, John C Klensin wrote:
I think where we disagree is that I'm at least a little more
concerned about working groups that become too homogeneous and
resistant to "outsider" views and input. Now, I think such WGs
are quite rare in the IETF, but I have seen a few situations
that I have trouble interpreting in any other way. Ideally, I'd
like to see ADs actively monitoring such groups but the ADs have
become sufficiently busy that they may not know what is going on
unless someone tells them... and no one within such a WG is
likely to tell them. I also have what I gather has become a
rather quaint notion that ADs should be accountable for the
behavior of their WGs even though I see and sympathize with the
overload problem. So I see "AD must approve" as a possible
small way to alert an AD that someone out of the ordinary
_might_ be going on. I'd be almost as happy with "WG Chair can
decide, but AD must be notified in a timely way and has the
right to override the decision".
Let's see:
1. A WG Chair decides to allow an I-D to be added a day
before a meeting.
2. There isn't any complaint about the decision.
3. The RAD overrides the decision.
Why have someone chair a meeting if he/she has to ask his/her manager
for permission?
Why would the RAD override a decision when the people in the group
seem happy with it?
It may be better to treat the "too homogeneous and resistant" problem
separately.
As far as groups not meeting at the IETF, I agree with you but
with one caution. Suppose there are people participating in one
or more not-meeting groups but also actively involved with
groups that are meeting. I don't know whether activity in the
not-meeting groups might distracting them from things during the
week but we should at least be asking the question. And, fwiw,
another part of the larger picture is our traditional
prohibition on interim meetings during, or right before or
after, IETF meetings. That is another area in which it might be
reasonable for a chair to decide to waive the rules but where I
think the responsible (interesting term, that) AD should at
least be aware that the meeting is happening and that the
chair(s) should be aware that participants in that WG might also
be participating in others.
The RAD would probably receive a notice if the WG is going to have a meeting.
I also see one of the main values of IETF meetings being the
opportunity for people who are not actively part of a WG to drop
in, find out what is going on, and maybe learn something. Who
knows, they might turn into active participants. Even at this
meeting, very remote and with some time zone disability, I
managed to sit in on a few meetings that left me with the
feeling that there are some issues to which I should be paying
more attention. As I have not been the only one to point out,
documents and/or agendas and/or meetings materials posted very
close to the meeting may tend to frustrate that sort of open
participation and openness to newcomers to that WG. If it
happens at one IETF meeting, I think "perceived emergency" or
"special circumstances" likely justify it. If it happens time
after time, then IMO someone external to the WG should be taking
a look at the causes of such a pattern and whether something
needs fixing. I don't see it as an absolute but as one of many
tradeoffs we need to make. But, again, I see WG accountability
to ADs and AD accountability to the community as crucial to
avoiding abuses or even the appearance of them. If the IETF has
stopped caring about those things, my views are irrelevant to
anything but the question of how long it will survive or
deserves to do so.
I could not find any email from someone self-identified as new
pointing out that they could not understand what was going on as the
materials (for that meeting) were only available a day before the
meeting. I agree with what you wrote about open participation.
What is happening is that people having been finding ways to get
around the two-weeks restriction and those ways are quite
effective. Every few years (it's actually 13 years), there is a
discussion such as this one.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
