Subject: [nfsv4] How the NFSv4 working group "meets" - what are the options...

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 00:20:01 -0700

Given recent comments on the WG alias about how the work of the NFSv4
working group “works” needs to be addressed.  I am starting a separate
thread such that all working group members might benefit from a reminder of
what resources are available to accomplish the work of the working group.

First, the brief, “marketing” message of how the IETF accomplishes work is
here:

https://www.ietf.org/how/

However, the more fruitful reference is from RFC 2418 “IETF Working Group
Guidelines and Procedures”

I have included a quote from that RFC below for reference.

As working group co-chair, I always assume that the working group is
meeting at the main IETF meetings.  While I have in the past suggested that
the WG work under the assumption that it would “not” meet, the consensus at
the time that this position was inappropriate.  Therefore, we always plan
to meet.

However, the NFSv4 working group does not always meet and I am required, as
a working group co-chair, provide an agenda well in advance of the
meeting.  I have queried the working group for an agenda to build that
content and secondarily query working group members about their planned
participation at an upcoming meeting.

Given the small numbers of active participants, all it takes is the absence
of 2 member of the active core to make it difficult to have an effective
face to face meeting at the IETF meeting.  Case in point is the most recent
IETF 105 meeting and there were 11 participants. Four of these are active
authors/editors and the remaining participants were there for
administrative support or general interest.  My point is if 2 of those 4
individuals were missing – it would have been significantly less
productive.  That could be perfectly fine to have small numbers but it is
obviously prudent to plan ahead to ensure that the meeting is a good use of
everyone’s time and a good use of the space utilized during the broader
IETF meeting – space is a premium.

As for other meetings, conference calls, interim meetings, and other
working group meetings are all perfectly fine.  As the quoted text below
indicates, these meetings can occur as long as there is broad knowledge of
the meeting, it is open to participation, and that minutes are collected
and reported out.  The co-chairs do not have to be present for these
alternative working group meetings – our responsibility is that the minutes
are collected and reported broadly.  So, if there is going to be working
group meeting, notify enough in advance, invite everyone, take minutes and
record them.

Spencer

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt

3.1. Session planning

   For coordinated, structured WG interactions, the Chair(s) MUST

   publish a draft agenda well in advance of the actual session. The

   agenda should contain at least:

   - The items for discussion;

   - The estimated time necessary per item; and

   - A clear indication of what documents the participants will need to

     read before the session in order to be well prepared.

   Publication of the working group agenda shall include sending a copy

   of the agenda to the working group mailing list and to

   [email-masked].

   All working group actions shall be taken in a public forum, and wide

   participation is encouraged. A working group will conduct much of its

   business via electronic mail distribution lists but may meet

   periodically to discuss and review task status and progress, to

   resolve specific issues and to direct future activities.  IETF

   Plenary meetings are the primary venue for these face-to-face working

   group sessions, and it is common (though not required) that active

   "interim" face-to-face meetings, telephone conferences, or video

   conferences may also be held.  Interim meetings are subject to the

   same rules for advance notification, reporting, open participation,

   and process, which apply to other working group meetings.

   All working group sessions (including those held outside of the IETF

   meetings) shall be reported by making minutes available.  These

   minutes should include the agenda for the session, an account of the

   discussion including any decisions made, and a list of attendees. The

   Working Group Chair is responsible for insuring that session minutes

   are written and distributed, though the actual task may be performed

   by someone designated by the Working Group Chair. The minutes shall

   be submitted in printable ASCII text for publication in the IETF

   Proceedings, and for posting in the IETF Directories and are to be

   sent to: [email-masked]

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 07:16:12 -0400

> Therefore, we always plan to meet.

Your emails regarding the last three IETF meeting do not reflect that
approach to planning.   I think there is a need to reflect this
always-plan-to-meet model more explicitly, particularly given the group's
current situation.

   - For IETF104, the message title was "IETF 104 - WG sessions scheduling
   is open - NFSv4 in Prague?" suggesting that there was as yet no plan to
   meet.

It goes on to say "This email is solicitation of potential agenda items and
overall meeting interest to determine *if* (emphasis added) an NFSv4 WG
meeting should be scheduled.

Further, the deadlines are based on the time for requesting a session
rather than for providing an agenda for a scgeduled meeting.

   - For IETF105, the message title was "IETF 105 - Montreal - NFSv4 WG
   meeting ?" also suggesting that a decision was yet to be made.

The message text continued the same approach: "Does the working group have
the topics/agenda items necessary to meet face to face?"

As it turned out some people had to eliminate valuable discussion items to
fit within one session and we still found ourselves running over.

   - For IETF106, the message title avoided the question mark: "IETF 106 NFSv4
   WG meeting"

However, the text of the message left the meeting as an unresolved question
suggesting that there was no intention to meet (which made sense in the
case of Singapore):

Scheduling requests are now open for IETF 106.

I would like to solicit input from the working group as to the need to meet
at IETF106.

Please let me know by Sept 20th *if *(emphasis added) we have agenda items
that necessitate an IETF106 meeting

Given this history, it was certainly reasionable for participants to wait
until a decision is actually made, before making their own travel plans.

In none of these case, is there any indication that the actual
need/likelyhood of meeting had any role in the decision process or in the
approach to planning.

In the case of IETF107, the group's current situation and the meeting
location means that we will need to have a meeting and that many
participants would be able to attend if given sufficient notice.   It is
necessary to soon make clear that we will be meeting and that the important
scheduling issue is the number and size of sessions to schedule.

   -

   The deadline for the meeting request is 08 Feb 2019.

   Given the upcoming holidays, I would like to make a decision by Jan 21st.

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:20 AM spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> However, the NFSv4 working group does not always meet and I am required,
> as a working group co-chair, provide an agenda well in advance of the
> Given the small numbers of active participants, all it takes is the
> absence of 2 member of the active core to make it difficult to have an
> effective face to face meeting at the IETF meeting.  Case in point is the
> most recent IETF 105 meeting and there were 11 participants. Four of these
> are active authors/editors and the remaining participants were there for
> _______________________________________________
> nfsv4 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4
>

---

From: spencer shepler <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 09:22:16 -0700

Dave,

With my email, I have now corrected the any perception of what the default
is for meeting during the main IETF meetings.

I believe that I have also addressed the alternative methods of conducting
working group activities.

All,

If others find there is still ambiguity of what tools or procedures are
available for effective working group activities, please speak up.

Spencer

On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 4:16 AM David Noveck <[email-masked]> wrote:

>    - For IETF104, the message title was "IETF 104 - WG sessions
>    scheduling is open - NFSv4 in Prague?" suggesting that there was as yet no
>    plan to meet.
>
> It goes on to say "This email is solicitation of potential agenda items
> and overall meeting interest to determine *if* (emphasis added) an NFSv4
> WG meeting should be scheduled.
>
> The message text continued the same approach: "Does the working group
> have the topics/agenda items necessary to meet face to face?"
>
> However, the text of the message left the meeting as an unresolved
> question suggesting that there was no intention to meet (which made sense
> in the case of Singapore):
>
> I would like to solicit input from the working group as to the need to
> meet at IETF106.
>
>
> Please let me know by Sept 20th *if *(emphasis added) we have agenda
> items that necessitate an IETF106 meeting
>
>> First, the brief, “marketing” message of how the IETF accomplishes work
>> is here:
>>
>>

---

From: David Noveck <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 05:54:48 -0400

> is for meeting during the main IETF meetings.

You have articulated an appropriate default. Unfortunately, changing
existing perceptions, built up over years, is more difficult. Also, when
you state that nothing has changed, it has the effect of undercutting the
message you want to present to those whose view of the recent past is
different from yours.

There is no point in continuing to rehash our different perceptions of the
scheduling for the last few IETF meetings.  Instead, given that the working
group is now fighting for its life, we need to draw a line under those
earlier events and clearly establish a practice to be followed going
forward. I don't think you have done that.

Given the current situation of the working group, it would be best if you
or Brian or Magnus would make clear to people that we will be meeting in
Vancouver and that it would be helpful if everyone who wants the working
group to continue would participate, preferably in person, but remotely if
necessary.  If we start now, there will be time to deal with scheduling
issues including how many sessions to schedule and deciding on priorities
for our limited time together. Later on, there will be occasions on which
we can treat the question of whether to meet as an open question but not
now. Not meeting in Vancouver or failing to take full advantage of this
opportunity could make it impossible for the working group to continue.
That is the unfortunate reality and we have to adapt to it.

> working group activities.

You have but there are some problems that need to be addressed.

Prime among these is the question of what "well in advance" means.   If
this applies to conference calls, and I believe it does, and is longer than
a few days, the value of this mode of communication would be significantly
compromised.

The other potential issue is the over-reliance on chairs to transmit stuff
most probably done by someone else.  Not only is this a waste of chairs'
time, but it also adds a delay of uncertain length.  A third co-chair will
help here but we also need to reset our expectations regarding such routine
administrative tasks, to something like 24-48 hours. To deal with chair
absences, we need to stop sending such requests to individuals but to a
special mailing list designed for that purpose, e.g.
nfsv4-chairs-right-now.

>> As it turned out some people had to eliminate valuable discussion items
>> to fit within one session and we still found ourselves running over.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 3:20 AM spencer shepler <
>> [email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>>> However, the more fruitful reference is from RFC 2418 “IETF Working
>>> Group Guidelines and Procedures”
>>>

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:50:03 -0700

> a few days, the value of this mode of communication would be significantly

https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/interim-meetings-guidance-2016-01-16/
says one week (ideally two) for virtual WG meetings.

-Ben