> 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. thanks for the progress randy
