such an exercise is worthwhile & has been underway for a few weeks you will see some results very soon Scott > On Apr 12, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Brian, > > On 12/04/16 21:32, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Of course it is. But (compared to the IESG) the IAOC does deal with >> a comparatively large fraction of issues that have confidential >> aspects - budget negotiation, contract negotiations, staff issues, >> operation security, and (with their Trustee hats on) legal issues. So >> there are going to be more problems about community access to IAOC >> proceedings than for the IESG. > > What I'm wondering is if, given the above, anyone has done an > analysis of what the IAOC really needs to keep confidential and > what does not need to be confidential? > > For example, recent events have fairly conclusively shown that > the "cities being considered" data which is related to "contract > negotiation" really ought not be confidential, at least in some > aggregated form. If you go back some years, the IETF meeting > hotel was also a not-so-well-kept secret until bookings opened, > and when we changed that the sky did not fall. So that's another > example. And if say the vmeet mailing list had been the place > where it was decided that IETF-95 remote attendees would have to > register, then we might have avoided that fuss. I can't see how > making that decision on that public list would have hurt anything > even though the fine meetecho support overall nvolves quite a few > of the issues related to confidentiality you list above. > > I don't know if the IAOC has analysed such things more generally. > But I hope it does do that once it's sorted out what to do about > IETF-100. I suspect that to date, the IAOC has been treating too > much data as confidential when that's not really needed. I figure > ending up in that state is quite understandable, but is not in the > end a good plan. > > And I don't believe we've actually heard the IAOC say that they > do think such a general exercise is or is not worthwhile. I do > think that some such statement now that the IAOC will consider a > switch to a default-open posture would be very very useful and > has not yet been made. (*) > > Cheers, > S. > > (*) Leslie's mail [1] only referred to reviewing meeting planning, > but not e.g. to any broader re-consideration which is what I'm > arguing would be better. > > [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97545.html > > >