Re: Meet Only line - I object

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fred,

(I’m an incoming AD but have had no say nor hand in this, nor any privileged insight. I’m posting as an individual and with an understanding based on the text of the charter.)

First, there is indeed a mailing list:


Mailing list:
  Address: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
  To subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
  Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/

I’ve dropped [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>, moved [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> to bcc and cc'd the WG mailing list since you indicated that was your preferred venue.

Second, you seem to be assuming that SHMOO is chartered to shut down in-person meetings. I see no support for that reading in the text. The closest it comes is this paragraph:


- The cadence of meeting scheduling and the mix of in-person versus fully
online meetings going forward once the disruptions caused by the pandemic
have subsided. The working group is expected to document the expected future
meeting cadence as a BCP if consensus emerges to depart from the existing
cadence of three 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 working group will not
progress this work item until it has requested publication for all of its
meeting cancellation-related work items.


Which seems very close in spirit to your own remark that you "can see scaling back”.

In short I think you’re either objecting to something that’s not present in the charter, or your objection isn’t at all clear. By the way, I’m sympathetic if you’re objecting based primarily on the name “Stay Home Meet Only Online”. I’ve objected to this myself — it’s a case of our institutional love for cute acronyms harming our actual mission.

—John

P.S.: I admire your optimism in thinking circumstances will allow an in-person meeting for 111.

On Feb 2, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Fred Baker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:



Looking at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/ballot/<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-shmoo/ballot/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!XTP9-jVdLqW9yS6dsR_35w0dAlzynw7UnTKUEEjZXB37BhkNSuIfOhza26iu2Q$>, I noted that there is no mailing list for this. Had there been one, this note would have been posted to it. I apologize for the wide distribution.

I can see setting up a policy for meetings that are cancelled by Force Majuere, but the fact that we have had such doesn’t call for stopping having meetings. The fact is that face-to-face meetings have value - people can get to know each other and set up a social basis for discussion, if nothing else. I can see scaling back - our European colleagues find the summer meeting timing awkward at best. But I don;’t see the temporary effect of having a global pandemic as justification for simply shutting down to mailing lists - which would be the likely effect of failing to meet.

So yes, I think we would do well to meet for IETF 111 and on.

Sent from my iPad