Hannes,
On 04/12/2012 08:28, Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo) wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
>
>> The point is that we work in public, so the whole community should
>> know.
>
> Working group mailing lists are also public.
Well yes, but we are talking here about (virtual) meetings.
>
>> I regularly attend WG meetings where I am not subscribed - it's one of
>> the
>> side benefits of the week-long meetings - and who's to say that I might
>> not
>> want to drop into OAuth too?
>
> Are you talking about IETF meetings? I am talking about conference calls
> here.
There's no difference in principle.
>
> Are you regularly joining conference calls of working groups where you are
> not subscribed to the mailing lists?
No. My point is that I have the right to. If not, it's a design team, and
that's a different discussion.
>> Suppose I happened to notice (I am making this up) that the foobar WG
>> has
>> decided to use the IPv6 Flow Label for an unintended purpose? I'd like
>> to know if they are going to have a conf call, so that I can explain
>> RFC 6437 to them. Otherwise, I have no interest in foobar.
> How would you find this out from the announcement of the conference call
> given that the agenda does not have to announced at the same time? (unless
> you join every conference call to figure out whether there is something of
> interest for you?)
I assume that the announcement would point to the agenda. Or I could look
at the WG mail archive at that point. In any case, I couldn't complain
later that the discussion had been kept private.
I don't see that informing the secretariat about virtual interims is a
significant burden on WG Chairs, compared to all the other work
involved.
Brian
Brian
