There is this from the IAB September 5th minutes:
4. Public IAB Teleconferences
The IAB discussed a proposal for public IAB teleconferences and how to balance the desire for transparency with the need to have certain discussions (e.g. about personnel appointments and liaisons with other organizations) under confidentiality.
Melinda Shore suggested that the IAB gather more data to analyze how making portions of the IAB teleconferences public would affect how the IAB does its work.
Ted Hardie suggested putting the narrative notes from the three most recent IAB teleconferences up in the private wiki and having IAB members mark whether each topic should have been discussed in a public session or a confidential session. The IAB agreed that this would be a good way to gather more data. The IAB will also keep this in mind when putting together agendas for their future meetings. The IAB will then review all of this information and continue the discussion about making portions of the IAB teleconferences public.
https://www.iab.org/documents/
minutes/minutes-2018/iab- minutes-2018-09-05/
On 26.09.18 02:55, Brian Haberman wrote:
On 9/25/18 7:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Precisely because dissent is healthy and consensus is usually rough
rather than complete, we expect discussions among the leaders to be
as public, transparent and documented as much as is reasonably
possible.
could someone who tracks better than i tell me what happened to opening
the iab meetings and reducing inappropriate executive sessions?
Nothing has happened in public. After the brief discussion after Ted's message to this list saying the agendas were being made public, there has been silence from the IAB.
I sent an email to the IAB after IETF 102 expressing a desire, like others, for their meetings to be open to observers. I have yet to get a response, public or otherwise, from the IAB.
Regards,
Brian
To add to the point Eliot made below, the results of that marking exercise showed that there were some differences in how folks assumed different aspects of the meetings would be treated. After some discussion, the guidance appears likely to be to make everything public that does not have reputational risk for an individual or group (so personnel discussions and discussions of the relationships of the IETF to other groups would not be public, to take two examples).
The IAB is running the next two meetings as if they were public (internally marking different sections for public/private, etc.) as a kind of dress rehearsel, and I expect a final plan shortly after that.
Speaking personnally, I've found it a lot simpler to create meetings that were open by default from the beginning (as we are doing for the new IETF Administration LLC Board), but I don't we're far out from an agreement on how to adjust the current practice.
Ted Hardie
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
