RE: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and Virtual Interim Meetings

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jari,

I oscillated between 'should' and 'must' myself. The principal reason I ended with a 'must' was that agreeing on exceptions can be perceived as excluding people from the process. In the real world some of us live justifying funds for 1-2 days interim of one WG is more difficult than getting a full IETF week approved. Remote participation is the only option. The 'must' requirement also seems pretty ubiquitous nowadays - it translates into 'the host of a f2f interim must ensure that a microphone and external phone connection exists in the room and the chairs must activate Meetecho or Webex'. 

Regards,

Dan


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 10:02 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: For Review: IESG Statement on Guidance on Face-to-Face and
> Virtual Interim Meetings
> 
> Dan,
> 
> > I suggest to add the following bullet to the face-to-face interim guidelines:
> >
> > - Remote participation (via Meetecho or similar) must be provided
> 
> I think that's a good addition, although I'd probably use the keyword 'should'
> to leave some wiggle room for special situations. We don't need to specify
> everything that the working groups do as rules.
> If the WG has reasonable leadership, they will do the right thing.
> 
> Jari