Subject: [sidr] SIDR Interim 24/March is CANCELLED

From: Stewart Bryant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:06:06 +0000

The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim
failed to reach [email-masked] within
the required two weeks notice. Additionally
the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March
and thus failed to meet the requirement that
"The agenda must be published at least one
week  before the call or session" .

The requirement to provide appropriate notice
of the meeting and its agenda is fundamental
to the IETF open standards process.

Since the failure to meet these requirement may
disadvantage some contributors, I regret that
I find it necessary to cancel the proposed SIDR
interim meeting scheduled for 24/March.

I thank those that provided feedback on the matter
and apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Stewart

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 03:04:40 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012, Stewart Bryant wrote:

> The announcement of the SIDR virtual interim failed to reach 
> [email-masked] within the required two weeks notice.

I'm puzzled as to why you're raising this now given that you argued on 
the IETF list last Friday that it was a minor failing: 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg72510.html

> Additionally the agenda was published on Sunday 17th March and thus 
> failed to meet the requirement that "The agenda must be published at 
> least one week before the call or session" .

The 17th was Saturday, not Sunday.  One could bicker about timezones, 
but it would be useless splitting of hairs.

> and apologize for any inconvenience caused.

While there may be other substantive reasons to cancel the interim 
meeting (some of which have been raised on the WG list), the two 
points cited don't seem to justify that action.

-- Sam

---

From: David Harrington <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 10:07:01 -0400

Hi,

FYI. The IESG decided the SIDR Interim should be cancelled because it
didn't meet the deadlines.

The rules about Interim meetings exist to ensure an open and fair process.
Other Wgs who planned an interim but didn't meet the deadlines have also
been forced to cancel.
BEHAVE WG is one example I am familiar with that had to cancel in the near
past.

SIDR is expected to play by the same rules as other Wgs.

--
David Harrington
Director, Transport Area
Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
[email-masked]
+1-603-828-1401

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:24:47 -0600

On 3/20/12 8:07 AM, David Harrington wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> FYI. The IESG decided the SIDR Interim should be cancelled because
> it didn't meet the deadlines.
> 
> The rules about Interim meetings exist to ensure an open and fair
> process. Other Wgs who planned an interim but didn't meet the
> deadlines have also been forced to cancel. BEHAVE WG is one example
> I am familiar with that had to cancel in the near past.

Yes, this annoying. But realize that you're not the only ones to have
experienced this annoyance. David mentioned BEHAVE WG. I had the same
thing happen with the IRI WG last year. The lesson I learned is that I
need to plan ahead farther.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Christopher Morrow <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 11:31:19 -0400

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

The planning for this wasn't required until very close to the
deadlines... certainly next time we can 'plan ahead' because we know
what's required.

---

From: Henk Uijterwaal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 17:40:58 +0100

> need to plan ahead farther.

I don't have a particular opinion if the meeting should be cancelled.  However,
I noticed that on Friday, the responsible AD said that it was OK to have the
meeting despite the small procedural error in organizing it: the meeting
was announced on the WG list, but not on the iesg-list.  On Monday, the
meeting is cancelled.  That doesn't look very nice.  In the future, I
suggest that the IESG makes a decision, then sticks to it, even if an
individual AD has approved something he really shouldn't.

Henk

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl
                                          http://www.uijterwaal.nl
                                          Phone: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There appears to have been a collective retreat from reality that day.
                                 (John Glanfield, on an engineering project)

---

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:04:47 -0400 (EDT)

> didn't meet the deadlines.

Thank you for the clarification that this was an IESG decision, not 
just Stewart's.

I still find the explanation wanting and would like to see a 
clarification.  As I pointed out earlier, the "missed" agenda deadline 
is so arguable as to be laughable -- indeed, the SIDR list archive 
shows the agenda as a Saturday, 17 March message but with a time stamp 
in the wee hours of Sunday morning UTC.  From that, I guess that it 
was still Saturday in her local timezone when the chair sent the 
agenda.  And the other point cited, being the missend of the original 
announcement, was quite reasonably explained by Stewart on Friday.

Are there perhaps other reasons for your decision that haven't been 
stated?

To be clear: I'm not disagreeing with the final decision.  Indeed, 
there may well be good reasons to cancel this interim meeting.  But 
the explanations offered to date don't hold water.

-- Sam

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:38:20 -0600

On 3/20/12 12:04 PM, Samuel Weiler wrote:
>> FYI. The IESG decided the SIDR Interim should be cancelled
>> because it didn't meet the deadlines.
> 
> clarification.  As I pointed out earlier, the "missed" agenda
> deadline is so arguable as to be laughable -- indeed, the SIDR list
> archive shows the agenda as a Saturday, 17 March message but with a
> time stamp in the wee hours of Sunday morning UTC.  From that, I
> guess that it was still Saturday in her local timezone when the
> chair sent the agenda.  And the other point cited, being the
> missend of the original announcement, was quite reasonably
> explained by Stewart on Friday.
> 

Hi Sam,

As an outgoing IESG member with no dogs in this fight, let me point
you to the interim meeting rules:

http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html

In particular:

   "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.

The announcement for the SIDR virtual interim meeting appeared on the
ietf-announce list on March 15th (please note that posting to the WG
list is not sufficient according to the text just quoted):

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg10034.html

Given that the meeting was to occur on March 24th, the two-week
advance notification requirement for virtual meetings was simply not met.

As noted, I experienced a similar glitch with an IRI WG meeting last
year. This kind of thing is unfortunate, but if we're going to ask
some working groups to abide by the rules, then all of them should
have to.

Respectfully,

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/