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: minutes@ietf.org3.2. Session venue   Each working group will determine the balance of email and face-to-   face sessions that is appropriate for achieving its milestones.   Electronic mail permits the widest participation; face-to-face   meetings often permit better focus and therefore can be more   efficient for reaching a consensus among a core of the working groupBradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 11]RFC 2418                Working Group Guidelines          September 1998   participants.  In determining the balance, the WG must ensure that   its process does not serve to exclude contribution by email-only   participants.  Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about   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 Meetings   If a WG needs a session at an IETF meeting, the Chair must apply for   time-slots as soon as the first announcement of that IETF meeting is   made by the IETF Secretariat to the WG-chairs list.  Session time is   a scarce resource at IETF meetings, so placing requests early will   facilitate schedule coordination for WGs requiring the same set of   experts.   The application for a WG session at an IETF meeting MUST be made to   the IETF Secretariat at the address agenda@ietf.org.  Some Area   Directors may want to coordinate WG sessions in their area and   request that time slots be coordinated through them.  If this is the   case it will be noted in the IETF meeting announcement. A WG   scheduling request MUST contain:   - The working group name and full title;   - The amount of time requested;   - The rough outline of the WG agenda that is expected to be covered;   - The estimated number of people that will attend the WG session;   - Related WGs that should not be scheduled for the same time slot(s);     and   - Optionally a request can be added for the WG session to be     transmitted over the Internet in audio and video.   NOTE: While open discussion and contribution is essential to working   group success, the Chair is responsible for ensuring forward   progress.  When acceptable to the WG, the Chair may call for   restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at IETF   working group sessions for the purpose of achieving progress. The   Working Group Chair then has the authority to refuse to grant the   floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering   inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the Chair is   disrupting the WG process.  The Chair should consult with the Area   Director(s) if the individual persists in disruptive behavior.   On-line   It can be quite useful to conduct email exchanges in the same manner   as a face-to-face session, with published schedule and agenda, as   well as on-going summarization and consensus polling.Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 12]RFC 2418                Working Group Guidelines          September 1998   Many working group participants hold that mailing list discussion is   the best place to consider and resolve issues and make decisions. The   choice of operational style is made by the working group itself.  It   is important to note, however, that Internet email discussion is   possible for a much wider base of interested persons than is   attendance at IETF meetings, due to the time and expense required to   attend.   As with face-to-face sessions occasionally one or more individuals   may engage in behavior on a mailing list which disrupts the WG's   progress.  In these cases the Chair should attempt to discourage the   behavior by communication directly with the offending individual   rather than on the open mailing list.  If the behavior persists then   the Chair must involve the Area Director in the issue.  As a last   resort and after explicit warnings, the Area Director, with the   approval of the IESG, may request that the mailing list maintainer   block the ability of the offending individual to post to the mailing   list. (If the mailing list software permits this type of operation.)   Even if this is done, the individual must not be prevented from   receiving messages posted to the list.  Other methods of mailing list   control may be considered but must be approved by the AD(s) and the   IESG.3.3. Session management   Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus" process.   IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree although   this is, of course, preferred.  In general, the dominant view of the   working group shall prevail.  (However, it must be noted that   "dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or   persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement.) Consensus   can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on   which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course).  Note that 51%   of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is   better than rough.  It is up to the Chair to determine if rough   consensus has been reached.   It can be particularly challenging to gauge the level of consensus on   a mailing list.  There are two different cases where a working group   may be trying to understand the level of consensus via a mailing list   discussion. But in both cases the volume of messages on a topic is   not, by itself, a good indicator of consensus since one or two   individuals may be generating much of the traffic.   In the case where a consensus which has been reached during a face-   to-face meeting is being verified on a mailing list the people who   were in the meeting and expressed agreement must be taken into   account.  If there were 100 people in a meeting and only a few peopleBradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 13]RFC 2418                Working Group Guidelines          September 1998   on the mailing list disagree with the consensus of the meeting then   the consensus should be seen as being verified.  Note that enough   time should be given to the verification process for the mailing list   readers to understand and consider any objections that may be raised   on the list.  The normal two week last-call period should be   sufficient for this.   The other case is where the discussion has been held entirely over   the mailing list.  The determination of the level of consensus may be   harder to do in this case since most people subscribed to mailing   lists do not actively participate in discussions on the list. It is   left to the discretion of the working group chair how to evaluate the   level of consensus.  The most common method used is for the working   group chair to state what he or she believes to be the consensus view   and. at the same time, requests comments from the list about the   stated conclusion.   The challenge to managing working group sessions is to balance the   need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need   to make forward progress.  The working group, as a whole, has the   final responsibility for striking this balance.  The Chair has the   responsibility for overseeing the process but may delegate direct   process management to a formally-designated Facilitator.   It is occasionally appropriate to revisit a topic, to re-evaluate   alternatives or to improve the group's understanding of a relevant   decision.  However, unnecessary repeated discussions on issues can be   avoided if the Chair makes sure that the main arguments in the   discussion (and the outcome) are summarized and archived after a   discussion has come to conclusion. It is also good practice to note   important decisions/consensus reached by email in the minutes of the   next 'live' session, and to summarize briefly the decision-making   history in the final documents the WG produces.   To facilitate making forward progress, a Working Group Chair may wish   to decide to reject or defer the input from a member, based upon the   following criteria:   Old   The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and is   redundant with information previously available;   Minor   The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been   resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing   decision;Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 14]RFC 2418                Working Group Guidelines          September 1998   Timing   The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet   opened for discussion; or   Scope   The input is outside of the scope of the working group charter.3.4. Contention and appeals   Disputes are possible at various stages during the IETF process. As   much as possible the process is designed so that compromises can be   made, and genuine consensus achieved; however, there are times when   even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to   agree.  To achieve the goals of openness and fairness, such conflicts   must be resolved by a process of open review and discussion.   Formal procedures for requesting a review of WG, Chair, Area Director   or IESG actions and conducting appeals are documented in The Internet   Standards Process [1].4. Working Group Termination   Working groups are typically chartered to accomplish a specific task   or tasks.  After the tasks are complete, the group will be disbanded.   However, if a WG produces a Proposed or Draft Standard, the WG will   frequently become dormant rather than disband (i.e., the WG will no   longer conduct formal activities, but the mailing list will remain   available to review the work as it moves to Draft Standard and   Standard status.)   If, at some point, it becomes evident that a working group is unable   to complete the work outlined in the charter, or if the assumptions   which that work was based have been modified in discussion or by   experience, the Area Director, in consultation with the working group   can either:   1. Recharter to refocus its tasks,   2. Choose new Chair(s), or   3. Disband.   If the working group disagrees with the Area Director's choice, it   may appeal to the IESG (see section 3.4).5. Rechartering a Working Group   Updated milestones are renegotiated with the Area Director and the   IESG, as needed, and then are submitted to the IESG Secretariat:   iesg-secretary@ietf.org.Bradner                  Best Current Practice                 [Page 15]RFC 2418                Working Group Guidelines          September 1998   Rechartering (other than revising milestones) a working group follows   the same procedures that the initial chartering does (see section 2).   The revised charter must be submitted to the IESG and IAB for   approval.  As with the initial chartering, the IESG may approve new   charter as-is, it may request that changes be made in the new charter   (including having the Working Group continue to use the old charter),   or it may decline to approve the rechartered working group.  In the   latter case, the working group is disbanded.6. Staff Roles   Working groups require considerable care and feeding.  In addition to   general participation, successful working groups benefit from the   efforts of participants filling specific functional roles.  The Area   Director must agree to the specific people performing the WG Chair,   and Working Group Consultant roles, and they serve at the discretion   of the Area Director.6.1. WG Chair   The Working Group Chair is concerned with making forward progress   through a fair and open process, and has wide discretion in the   conduct of WG business.  The Chair must ensure that a number of tasks   are performed, either directly or by others assigned to the tasks.   The Chair has the responsibility and the authority to make decisions,   on behalf of the working group, regarding all matters of working   group process and staffing, in conformance with the rules of the   IETF.  The AD has the authority and the responsibility to assist in   making those decisions at the request of the Chair or when