>> Yes. And I didn't mean that all politics should be in executive >> session. It's just that if the IAB needs to discuss how it should >> respond to external politically charged events, the discussion would >> happen in one of three ways: >> >> 1. In an open session, in which case the IAB would be showing its >> weaknesses to the other parties. >> >> 2. In an executive session. >> >> 3. If #2 is not an option, in a secret meeting. >> >> I like #3 less than #2. So if there's to be a new dispensation, >> I think the IAB needs to be able to hold executive sessions about >> external (non-I*TF) matters as well as the usual HR/legal matters. >> In general, I don't see why internal I*TF matters would need >> secrecy. > > The IAB does a lot of discussions with external partners. Sometimes that > involves bargaining, and bargaining often involves a part of bluff. One > of the concerns is that if the IAB entirely discusses its bargaining > positions in open meetings, then the other party will effectively see > through the bluff, and the IAB/IETF negotiation position will be much > weakened. so holding a secret meeting within a closed meeting to discuss a bof on the rfc series is o perfectly fine o a lapse of judgement (of course i have none of those :) o a lapse of process o your ad goes here? randy
