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

From: Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 13:47:04 -0700

Alvaro Retana 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) §3.1:

   The LLC SHOULD cancel a meeting if it judges a meeting to be
   logistically impossible or inconsistent with its fiduciary
   responsibilities.

s/LLC SHOULD cancel a meeting/LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and
explore potential remedies

Given the possible remedies, it seems that logistic issues (for example) may be
addressed by virtualizing or postponement.  IOW, the in-person part of the
meeting may be canceled.  I feel that I may be missing some additional
context...

(2) §3.2: The first paragraph mentions both the IESG and IRTF Chair, but the
others only mention the IESG.  Is this an oversight (or maybe shorthand), or an
indication that the assessment is driven only by the feasibility of an IETF
meeting?

(3) §3.2: It seems to me that (similar to §3.1), there should be text
indicating when the IESG should cancel the in-person meeting.  Something like
this:

   The IESG SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if the assessment
   indicates that attendance won't be high enough to be of benefit.

(4) If the meeting is virtualized, then no one really is remote -- everyone is
online/virtual.

§4.2: s/fully remote/fully online

§4.4: s/even attend remotely/even attend online

§5: s/meeting becomes remote/meeting is virtualized

§5: s/for a remote meeting/for an online meeting

§5: s/attend a remote meeting/attend an online meeting

(5) §4.3: Is there a reason to not use normative language in this sentence:

   The new end date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the
   beginning of the following IETF meeting, and a meeting must begin
   no earlier than 1 month after the postponement announcement.

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:31:58 -0700

Hi!

All of your comments are in this PR, already merged:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/11

except:
Comment (2) about the IRTF chair references was addressed in a previous
review, where I added several more references. For brevity, the IRTF chair
is not mentioned *every* time we refer to the IESG. If you feel that's
important, I can make the change.

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:19:08 +0000

Hi Martin!

A strict reading may give the wrong impression.

It may be worth adding your explanation to make it clear that it is not an
oversight or an explicit indication that it is only the IESG that carries
the action.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

On July 13, 2021 at 3:32:10 PM, Martin Duke ([email-masked]) wrote:

except:

---

From: Martin Duke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:30:05 -0700

OK, it's now added everywhere
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/commit/6f0f0ff185823e64a1daaa395cb48c2d726890f6
except it's only the IESG that would pursue updates to this document.