Subject: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: (with COMMENT)

From: John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:26:58 -0700

John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. A small suggestion for the Abstract:

OLD:
   The IETF holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss and

NEW:
   The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss and

2. I think this may have been raised already, but just in case:

   *  The number of critical support staff and contractors who can be at
      the venue.

Does this adequately capture the need for critical volunteers as well? I'm
thinking in particular of the NOC.

3. I reviewed the Github Editor's copy (as of July 13 16:00 EDT or so) and
noticed that the text "These remedies are listed in approximate declining order
of preference" was added to the end of §4. That directly conflicts with version
5's "presented in no particular order". I like the text in v5 and don't
particularly like the proposed edit.

4. Regarding

   The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable
   travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc).

Has any consideration been given to adding some kind of text to the effect that
attendees might choose to protect themselves against such losses with
appropriate travel insurance? I appreciate that it would represent scope creep
(it's not directly germane to "providing criteria for making this judgement")
so I'm not bothered if this isn't adopted; however, I can see some benefits to
including it.

5. Regarding

   *  Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants.
      It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed
      without incident.

I presume this has been discussed to death, and it's understood this may result
in the IETF eating sunk costs? (Similar applies to the rest of the bullets in
the list.) I do see there's an escape clause for "extraordinary threats to the
solvency of the organization".

6. Regarding

   This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet

s/internet/Internet/. The NYT style is wrong, wrong, wrong on this one.

7. Is the Acknowledgements section empty deliberately?

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:47:03 -0700

Thanks John,

This PR is merged:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/15

> particularly like the proposed edit.

So the principles are in no particular order and the remedies are in rough
order. I don't feel
strongly one way or the other as to whether this sentence stays in. IIUC
this is the one thing
that may still need attention having merged the PR.

> so I'm not bothered if this isn't adopted; however, I can see some

I consider it out of scope, and I'd rather not recommend travel insurance
to people.

> solvency of the organization".

There was some discussion but this bit was not all that controversial. Jay
did a review and thought it was fine.

> 7. Is the Acknowledgements section empty deliberately?

D'oh! Fixed now.

---

From: John Scudder <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:53:50 +0000

> On Jul 13, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Martin Duke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:26 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> So the principles are in no particular order and the remedies are in rough order. I don't feel
> strongly one way or the other as to whether this sentence stays in. IIUC this is the one thing

Oh I see now. I was thrown off by the pronoun (“these remedies”) and proximity, which led me to read the comment as referring to the list of principles. I think this could be addressed by a small edit, as in s/These/The following/.

—John

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:56:04 -0700

Roger that,

https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/commit/3d5a71ca63051ac3ddf409db3aa0794d43d1eb0a

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:53 PM John Scudder <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Oh I see now. I was thrown off by the pronoun (“these remedies”) and
> proximity, which led me to read the comment as referring to the list of
> principles. I think this could be addressed by a small edit, as in
> s/These/The following/.
>
> —John