On 3/23/24 19:49, S Moonesamy wrote:
If I am not mistaken, you commented about WG homogeneity. Some WGs work somewhat differently, e.g. some use RFC 8874. The people showing interest in their deliverables seem okay with that. Let's say that I have not showed any interest in the deliverables. I could not find a good reason to impose a change in work practice.
I don't think it's possible to reliably establish that the people showing interest in a WG's deliverables (for the present or future) are okay with a particular set of practices. Even if a WG explicitly asks everyone on its mailing list for their consent to a change in the rules, new participants may join at any time, and it's not desirable to exclude or discourage new participants.
I'm not a big fan of use of github by WGs, but at least that particular subject has had extensive discussion within IETF. I don't think it should serve as a general example of why it's okay for some WGs to work differently than others.
One of my big concerns about working groups, especially these days, is that there seems to be an increasing tendency for WGs to operate as closed clubs. They can't stop new people from joining their mailing lists or their publicly announced meetings, but they can discourage participation from newcomers in various ways. Holding "interim" meetings (whether remote or in-person) without community-wide announcement in the usual means (e.g. ietf-announce) is certainly one way they can do that. Having the chair or other designee object to any suggestion by an "outsider" is another way. It's absolutely NOT okay for a WG to operate in that way, even if some of the core participants think it's ok.
Keith
