Re: [111attendees] test

John C Klensin <> Fri, 23 July 2021 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3EF3A0D91; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xupkCW_Zq1he; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C0D33A0D7E; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 10:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (helo=PSB) by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1m6z0Y-000F0v-Dv; Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:30:46 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 13:30:40 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To: Lars Eggert <>, Toerless Eckert <>
cc: Randy Bush <>,, Carsten Bormann <>, Vittorio Bertola <>, Michael StJohns <>
Message-ID: <08ED222C861609ACCF4FBE9F@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 17:31:08 -0000

--On Friday, July 23, 2021 16:37 +0300 Lars Eggert
<> wrote:

> Hi,
> On 2021-7-23, at 16:26, Toerless Eckert <> wrote:
>> I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person
>> meeting part would require attendees even when being together
>> in a room to use their notebooks for discussions instead
>> of having a physical line at a single microphone, so that
>> there is more fairness between local and remote, but that
>> was never really discussed on manycouches or
>> picked up their documents.
> that is because SHMOO is not chartered to work on guidelines
> for hybrid meetings - it is chartered to work on guidelines
> for fully online meetings. (I think I recall seeing that being
> pointed out on the manycouches list.)
> If community members would like to make proposals for hybrid
> meetings, that can of course be done via individual I-Ds. But
> SHMOO cannot begin work in this space without a rechartering.

But, Lars, moving up several thousand meters...

Independent of the more specific suggestions from several of the
people you have copied and others, I think one of two things is
true as a matter of logic.  Either (1) we are convinced that,
realistically, fully in-person meetings are so far in the future
that we should concentrate our energy on figuring out how to
make all online meetings work as well as possible or (2) unless
there is some likely flag day in the near further such that we
can realistically plan on almost everyone coming back to
"normal", in-person meetings all at once, we should be putting
effort into figuring out how to do hybrid meetings well,
starting with figuring out what "hybrid" means for us.

If the first case applies, spending time in SHMOO and/or in
consultations by the LLC fine-tuning criteria for going back to
in-person meetings or whether the "next" meeting will be in
person, is a waste of time and resource.

Either way, it seems to me that, as IETF Chair and General Area
AD, it seems to me, if the SHMOO charter and work are no longer
a good match for the needs of the IETF, you have both the
authority and responsibility to make that determination and to
either shut things down or initiate a conversation about
adjusting the charter so that things get onto a more useful
track.  Or you could propose that people start working on a
charter for a SHMHybrid WG that would compete with SHMOO for
interested people, time, and resources (it is probably clear
that I don't think much of that idea, but it is logically

It seems to me however that, unless you have a plan about how
individual I-Ds --ones that the experience of the last 18 months
suggests would be very controversial-- would reach consensus
without a WG structure and be processed, is sort of missing the

thanks for listening,
   (for identification in this context: still, I believe, the
only AD to have decided that a WG was going sufficiently off the
rails to have shut it down in the middle of the meeting -- no
IESG member is being paid big bucks by the IETF to be popular,
only to Do the Right Thing.)

> Thanks,
> Lars