Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Benjamin Kaduk's Block on charter-ietf-shmoo-01-01: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:34:54 -0500

Hi all,

Please accept my apologies, here is the updated text that resolves Ben's 
blocks (I hope):

Stay Home Meet Occasionally Online (shmoo)

The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have been mitigated by the
time this group completes its work, but the experience of handling meeting
planning during the pandemic has proven that having community consensus guidance
at hand when dealing with novel conditions in the future is beneficial.

The disruption of the IETF's typical schedule of three mostly-in-person meetings
per year, is causing it to convert a number of such meetings to fully online
meetings. Yet discussions about the possibility of fully or mostly online
meetings had been occurring in the IETF community for years as a result of
general increases in remote attendance, improvements in web conferencing
services, concerns about the environmental impact of travel, and other reasons.
It might therefore happen that in-person meeting participation will become less
popular and that a significant fraction of  participants will be remote.

The meeting planning activities that the IESG and the IETF LLC engage in would
benefit from IETF community consensus guidance concerning novel aspects raised
by these developments. The SHMOO working group is therefore chartered to
document high-level guidance and principles to the IESG and the IETF LLC.

The guidance and principles will concern the following:

- Meeting planning for fully online meetings. Similar to how RFC 8719
   establishes guidance for the regional rotation of in-person meetings, the IESG
   and the LLC would benefit from having community consensus guidelines about the
   time zone selection, meeting length in days, and other high-level scheduling
   aspects when an in-person meeting must be canceled. This work item is expected
   to be fulfilled with the publication of one or more BCPs.

- Meeting planning for mostly online, or “hybrid,” meetings. Meetings that have
   an in-person component but with significantly more remote participants than a
   mostly-in-person meeting need to be planned with community consensus
   guidelines, too. While trade-offs have often been addressed in favor of onsite
   attendees, the IESG and LLC would benefit from having community consensus on
   high-level guidance about the organization of such hybrid meetings, regarding
   such things as the meeting schedule, the meeting length in days,
   acceptable limitations on the maximum allowed or minimum expected onsite
   attendees, whether and how to schedule and prioritize among onsite activities
   such as side meetings, the terminal room, the code lounge, and others, and
   other scheduling aspects.

- Determinations about the meeting fee structure for remote participation. Since
   remote participation in mostly-in-person meetings has historically been free,
   IETF LLC and IESG decisions about the meeting fee structure for remote
   participation need to be informed by community guidelines. This work item is
   expected to be fulfilled with the publication of one or more BCPs. Suggestions
   for changing the IETF's overall funding model are out of scope.

- The cadence of meeting scheduling and the mix of mostly-in-person, hybrid and
   fully online meetings going forward as well as the format of meetings, e.g.,
   use of interims compared to components and length of the plenary meeting
   (week). The working group is expected to document the expected future meeting
   cadence and format as a BCP if consensus emerges to depart from the existing
   cadence of three mostly-in-person meetings per year. Notably, any such
   guidance will not become actionable until 3-4 years after it achieves
   consensus, given the length of the IETF meeting planning cycle.

The work of SHMOO is expected to produce high-level principles, not detailed
operational plans. The goal is to produce guidelines for the IESG and the IETF
LLC to operationalize while ensuring they have substantial flexibility to
continue to deliver and evolve the IETF meeting experience to best serve IETF
participants and the Internet community at large. Specifications of details
concerning cancellation criteria, meeting technologies, and online meeting
agenda formats and content are out of scope. Aside from fee structure,
discussion of financial aspects of IETF meetings and changes to RFC 8713
are both out of scope. Scheduling guidance for interim meetings is out of scope.

There are no other edits forthcoming. I believe Mirja's explanation to 
Rob's comment on terminology to be convincing and a reflection of shmoo 
discussions to date.

As for Alvaro's comment about milestones, I'd like to request further 
explanation. We don't currently have milestones planned because I think 
it would be a rather unreliable activity with mixed results in the end.

Thanks,

-Mallory

On 2/21/22 6:51 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 06:12:07PM +0200, Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2022-2-17, at 15:10, Mallory Knodel<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>> Here's an updated version with those two corrected:
>> <snip>
>>
>> I submitted this ashttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/01-02/.
>>
>> Please let me know if any further edits are coming to address comments raised by other ADs?
> Er, now I'm confused.  Is the work item for which "discussion of financial
> aspects of IETF meetings and changes to RFC 8713" are potentially in scope
> the work item about "the meeting fee structure for remote participation" or
> "the cadene of meeting scheduling"?  I assumed the former, but that's not
> the "last work item above", which is what the text in the -01-02 is
> pointing to.
>
> -Ben

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780

---

From: Jay Daley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 09:52:07 +1300

>   for changing the IETF's overall funding model are out of scope.

Isn’t the point here not the fee structure itself but ensuring that any fee for remote participation does not become a barrier to participation?

e.g.

- Ensuring that any fees for remote participation do not become barriers for participation.  Since
  remote participation in mostly-in-person meetings has historically been free,
  IETF LLC and IESG decisions about the meeting fee structure for remote
  participation need to be informed by community guidelines to ensure that those for whom
  a fee is a barrier to participation are still able to participate. This work item is
  expected to be fulfilled with the publication of one or more BCPs. Suggestions
  for changing the IETF's overall funding model are out of scope.

Jay

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[email-masked]

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 08:57:12 -0500

Hi Jay,

> Isn’t the point here not the fee structure itself but ensuring that any fee for remote participation does not become a barrier to participation?

I don't disagree!

However there might be other considerations as well. You can see Mirja's 
draft for a sense of what's covered, including costs:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-shmoo-remote-fee/

I think we can simply note that it's a work item without the 
assumptions, in the charter as it is, unless there is a possible 
consequence that I'm missing.

-Mallory

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:18:16 +0100

> Isn’t the point here not the fee structure itself but ensuring that any fee for remote participation does not become a barrier to participation?

Please clarify?

Does this have to do with the current absence of free registration option?

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:18:41 +0100

Le 03/03/2022 à 14:57, Mallory Knodel a écrit :
>> Isn’t the point here not the fee structure itself but ensuring that 
>> any fee for remote participation does not become a barrier to 
>> participation?
>
> I don't disagree!
>
> However there might be other considerations as well. You can see 
> Mirja's draft for a sense of what's covered, including costs:
>

Is the free fee registration option available currently?

It was, before.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 14:29:28 +0100

Sorry, mistake on my part.

I was indeed pointed to the URLo f the existing free registration option 
currently available.  It is public on the IETF home page.

Alex

Le 09/03/2022 à 14:18, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 22:02:09 +0100

Hi, Jay,

I will not write to [email-masked].

I said - sorry.

I think the word 'spamming' might not be appropriate in this context?

I think many other private emails, including from IETF Chair, requesting 
me to stop posting, have been satisfied.

If it continues this way I will simply go away from IETF, sorry to say that.

Alex

Le 09/03/2022 à 20:50, Jay Daley a écrit :
> Hi Alex
>
> Just a reminder to please send queries like this direct [email-masked]  rather than spamming multiple lists.
>
> cheers
> Jay
>
>> On 10/03/2022, at 2:29 AM, Alexandre Petrescu<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>
>> I was indeed pointed to the URLo f the existing free registration option currently available.  It is public on the IETF home page.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>>> However there might be other considerations as well. You can see Mirja's draft for a sense of what's covered, including costs:
>>>>
>>>> I think we can simply note that it's a work item without the assumptions, in the charter as it is, unless there is a possible consequence that I'm missing.
>>>

---

From: Lars Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 10:19:18 +0200

Hi,

On 2022-3-2, at 18:34, Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please accept my apologies, here is the updated text that resolves Ben's blocks (I hope):

<snip>

I uploaded this as charter-ietf-shmoo-01-03.

Please let me know if the comment from Jay will require edits to the charter text?

Thanks,
Lars

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 15:23:48 -0800

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Mar 2, 2022, at 12:52 PM, Jay Daley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Speaking as a constituency of one, I would go for that statement.

---

From: Mallory Knodel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 05:22:49 -0400

Hi Lars,
I don't think that we need an additional edit, but I'm open to a specific
suggestion for text change.
-Mallory