Hi Keith,
At 03:05 AM 24-03-2024, Keith Moore wrote:
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.
There is a misunderstanding of the requirement/rule. There are
requirements/rules which I cannot change, e.g. the Last-Call shall be
two weeks.
Sometimes, a practice (sorry if it is not the correct word) is set by
agreement when the WG starts its work. I found it useful as it
allows the WG to meet its target date for delivering the I-D to the
AD. For what it is worth, I have been off by six months on a target
date. All the RFCs which I shepherded were published in under three years.
Over the years, I only received one complaint about the exclusion of
participants. The person who filed the complaint had a
point. However, the point was something to do with IETF policy
(which is something which I could not change).
The question which John asked for about documents to be discussed at
a meeting. A person, irrespective of characteristics, who comes to
the meeting could protest if a rule was violated.
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.
Ok.
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.
As a comment on interim meetings, there is a decision by the IAB at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/iab/appeals/artifact/39
There are various ways to discourage participation by not-the-usual
participants, e.g. setting an online meeting at any inconvenient time
for a not-the-usual participant. I attended meeting scheduled in
far-away timezones. It is a significant effort, and cost, to do that
over a very long period.
There is a RFC which discussed clubs if I recall correctly.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
