Subject: IESG Statement on Revised guidance for interim meetings

From: IESG Secretary <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 10:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

This statement provides IESG guidance on interim IETF Working Group
meetings, conference calls, and jabber sessions.

Historically the work of the IETF has been conducted over mailing lists.
This practice ensures the widest possible involvement in the working
group process. This practice is not as efficient in terms of producing
specifications as extended face-to-face meetings but is much more
inclusive. In general IETF face-to-face meetings are used to hold
high-bandwidth discussions on specific issues that have not been able
to be resolved on a mailing list or, in the case of BOFs, to get a
common understanding of the issues involved in a particular topic.
These face-to-face meetings can be quite important but are not
substitutes for mailing list discussions.

There is a long history in the IETF of working groups occasionally
holding "interim" face-to-face meetings between the regular IETF
meetings to focus on specific issues or resolve specific problems.

Some IETF working groups hold interim conference calls or jabber
sessions in lieu of interim face-to-face meetings and to accelerate
the working group process.

RFC 2418 section 3.1 tell us that "interim meetings are subject to the
same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation, and
process, which apply to other working group meetings." This applies to
all in-person meetings to which a large part of the working group is
invited, even if labeled as 'informal' to distinguish them from 'real'
working group meetings. This does not apply to meetings, conference
calls, or jabber sessions for small design teams producing input to
working groups. It should also be noted that as RFC 2418 section 3.2
points out, decisions at meetings (normal, interim. conference call, or
jabber session) are not final and must be reviewed on the mailing list.

"Advance notification" and "process" require prior approval of the
face-to-face meeting by the relevant Area Director and publication of
an announcement on the ietf-announce list. "Advance notification" and
"process" require prior approval by the Working Group Chair for the
conference call (either audio or video) or jabber session and publication
of an announcement on the ietf-announce list. Face-to-face meetings must
be announced at least four weeks prior to the meeting. Conference calls
and jabber sessions must be announced at least two weeks prior to the
event. Following announcement, an agenda for the meeting, call, or
session must be published in a timely manner. All such meetings, calls,
or sessions must be open to all who wish to take part. Detailed minutes
are required to be taken and submitted to the IETF Secretariat for
inclusion in the next IETF meeting proceedings. A list of attendees must
also be submitted. The minutes, including a list of attendees, must be
sent to [email-masked] within 10 days after the meeting, conference
call or jabber session concludes.

Area Director approval is need to schedule an interim face-to-face
meeting. Interim meetings can consume a lot of community resources,
including travel costs and time of participants. Also, we have seen
significant benefits when two or more working groups meet together.
Area Directors are expected to balance the costs to the community
associated with interim meetings and the expected benifits. Interim
face-to-face meetings which are proposed to eliminate the need for a
working group to meet during a regular IETF meeting will not generally
be approved.

Working Group Chair approval is needed to schedule a conference call
or jabber session.

Area Directors will advise the Working Group Chair on interim
face-to-face meeting location, timing, and other aspects of the proposed
meeting that with a goal of not unfairly favoring some subset of the
potential participants or not unfairly biasing the working group
discussions. Working Group Chairs will evaluate the proposed conference
call or jabber session logistics for similar fairness concerns,
consulting with Area Directors as necessary to resolve any concerns
raised by potential participants.

Requests for interim face-to-face meetings must be sent to the
appropriate Area Director for approval. The actual announcement text
must be sent to [email-masked] as well as the working group mail
list. Of course, the requesting Working Group Chair may send one
message, copying both the Area Director and [email-masked].
Following Area Director approval, the Secretariat will publish the
announcement on the ietf-announce list.

The Secretariat is available to help with logistics of face-to-face
interim meetings. Of course, the larger the meeting, the more lead time
is needed to make arrangements.

Working Group Chairs must send announcement text for an interim
conference call or jabber session to [email-masked] as well
as the working group mail list. The Secretariat will publish the
announcement on the ietf-announce list.

To summarize:
- Interim face-to-face meetings of IETF Working Groups need prior
approval of relevant ADs
- Interim conference calls and jabber sessions of IETF Working Groups
need prior approval of the Working Group Chair
- Face-to-face meetings must be announced at least four weeks prior to
the meeting, and the agenda must be published at least two weeks before
meeting
- Face-to-face meetings must be scheduled (location/timing) with fair
access for all WG participants
- Conference calls and jabber sessions must be announced at least two
weeks prior to the call or session, and the agenda must be published at
least one week before call or session
- Announcement text must be sent to [email-masked]
- Detailed minutes, including a list of attendees, must be sent to
[email-masked] and the working group mail list within 10 days
of the event
- Following the guidance in RFC 2418, decisions reached during interim
meetings, conference calls, and jabber sessions on topics or issues
which have not been discussed on the mailing list or are significantly
different from previously arrived mailing list consensus must be
reviewed on the mailing list.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:16:14 -0700

> meetings, conference calls, and jabber sessions.

Good note.

> inclusive. 

In attending meetings for a group that does all its work in extended 
face-to-face discussions, I discovered another benefit of the mailing-list 
orientation of the IETF:  deliberation.

When a reliance on face-to-face meetings is coupled with any sort of timely 
deadline, the group is forced to make potentially precipitous decisions.

When discussion and decision-making can extend over the longer period of email 
discussion, the decision-making has much more opportunity to consider 
implications and recover from problematic choices.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:42:31 -0400

>implications and recover from problematic choices.

In summary, email discussion has less tendency toward "group think" 
than face-to-face gatherings.

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:14:30 -0700

Russ Housley wrote:
> In summary, email discussion has less tendency toward "group think" than 
> face-to-face gatherings.

Interesting.  I hadn't connected with that term, for this, but it's really quite 
apt.

The Wikipedia article on the term, at:

   <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink>

is useful for considering working group processes that lead to bad decision-making.

Notably:

> Symptoms of groupthink
> 
> In order to make groupthink testable, Irving Janis devised eight symptoms
> that are indicative of groupthink (1977).
> 
> 1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging
> risk taking.
> 
> 2. Rationalising warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions.
> 
> 3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to
> ignore the consequences of their actions.
> 
> 4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, disfigured,
> impotent, or stupid.
> 
> 5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group,
> couched in terms of "disloyalty".
> 
> 6. Self censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
> 
> 7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as
> agreement.
> 
> 8. Mindguards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting
> information.

Would that email discussion were enough to guard against these weaknesses.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Marshall Eubanks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 17:24:50 -0400

>> In summary, email discussion has less tendency toward "group think"  

Of course. Humans are hierarchical social animals; it is very hard for  
most people to disagree with a room
full of people.

Maybe even more pertinently for technical work, it is very hard (for  
most people) to think in depth
in a room full of people.

IMHO confirming decisions on the list is a very valuable sanity check  
and should not be dropped under
any circumstances.

Regards
Marshall

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:08:36 -0400

+1

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 16:25:52 -0600

>> 7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as

Well that's and interesting point to consider when looking at the  
average IETF Last Call.