On 2018-09-06 02:50, Ted Hardie wrote:
> As you'll note from following the link provided, that is on today's
> agenda. Thanks for your input into the agenda item.
fwiw I think this is a two-edged sword. It's not a new discussion, of course.
In fact it goes back to 1994 to my personal recollection. And there was
a time when the IAB held open face-to-face meetings at IETF sites, before the
IETF Plenary was invented. When the IAB is discussing architecture, there's
every reason to open the discussion (which is why there are IAB workshops
and architecture-discuss@xxxxxxxx).
But there are quite a lot of issues the IAB has to handle that are not
part of its architecture remit and that do have a political angle. Replay
the great ICANN/IANA saga a couple of years ago, for example. I fear that
either the IAB would have been very inhibited in its discussions, or
they would mainly have been held in executive sessions.
So yes to opening up the discussions, but not all of them.
As for publishing the agenda, yes, we should have done that all along.
Mea culpa.
Regards
Brian
>
> regards,
>
> Ted Hardie
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:31 AM, Thomas Nadeau <tnadeau@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> All of these meetings should be.
>>
>> —Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 2018, at 10:29 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At the IETF 102 plenary session there was a request to the IAB to make
>>>> its agendas public in advance of its meetings, so that interested
>>>> members of the community could contact the IAB regarding items on the
>>>> agenda. The IAB agreed, and the draft agendas will be available at:
>>>
>>> my memory is that the critical request that the iab follow the iesg's
>>> lead and make the meeting o-p-e-n. and i fully and strongly support
>>> that request.
>>>
>>> randy
>>>
>>
>>
>
