Randy, > On Sep 6, 2018, at 5:30 AM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> 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? If the IAB decided it needed to discuss an IETF BOF proposal in executive session something is seriously wrong. This was not a personal matter, nor negotiating with another group, nor discussing individuals being considered for an open position. This is very broken. Bob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
