Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 09 July 2020 21:58 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 979DA3A08F6; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hGYQrZk3poe; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF323A08FB; Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.183.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 069LwR1p004088 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1594331920; x=1594418320; i=@elandsys.com; bh=+vXyDp+nHB6rfIgqwUTYMn/t+ias5+gDFs5YqRl1Ss8=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=r7PcZHci4AVbIXv90GXn+R39mFtVRQoHDGYSw43Ve+OMRBmGokXw0TVyIvl16tvdS nYPm3hKwcteXgSAzVOlynhPA9P4lsgCMmi6n4GWYpD2840DfW7wqjGXfSniI5XbRt0 /1R9vc4ubrLWwpNN8Csq+BfFdHdRkdzA4pYUZ2vQ=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200709132444.098ec410@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 14:54:51 -0700
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo)
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <5C58F041-9991-49DA-98B6-6700499DFBC9@cooperw.in>
References: <159318840162.4951.12569119165623562334@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200627023025.0b145350@elandnews.com> <5C58F041-9991-49DA-98B6-6700499DFBC9@cooperw.in>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UMIwJ316tc_ISe7CTIvUzDGRT78>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2020 21:58:57 -0000
Hi Alissa, Thanks for the response. I'll comment inline. At 07:45 AM 09-07-2020, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>Will the "high-level principles" be about hopes or ambitions to >>achieve something? > >I don't understand this question. First, I'll quote an extract from RFC 8719 as it may help to explain what I am asking about: "Implementation of the Policy IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the aspiration of the IETF community." The word "aspiration" can be interpreted as being about hopes or ambitions. Based on my experience from another organization which is not related to the IETF, policies are not intended to be aspirations. The rationale for that is because a policy is there to guide decision-making instead of leaving it to the whims of the person(s) authorized to take the decision. >No, the closure of MTGVENUE was done knowing that a new group with a >different remit might need to be formed. Ok. >>Does the cadence of meeting scheduling affect NomCom eligibility? > >Yes. > >>Did meeting planning have an impact on NomCom eligibility? > >Yes, see ><https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8788.html>https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8788.html. Before the pandemic, there were two categories of IETF community: (i) people who are charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings in person. (ii) people who are not charged an attendance fee to attend IETF meetings remotely. Since the pandemic, the IETF has been unable to hold IETF meetings in person and it switched to a fully only meeting [1]. People in categories (i) and (ii) are charged an attendance fee. However, the people in category (ii) are not being offered the same treatment as the people in category (i). In the country [2] where I reside, the exclusion of people in category (ii) eligibility would be considered as discrimination. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/BPNyTxka355XbY03VSBtjl5y_So/ 2. It could be different in other countries.
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Ted Hardie
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Mirja Kuehlewind
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Eric Rescorla
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Alissa Cooper
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Joseph Touch
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Salz, Rich
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Joseph Touch
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Donald Eastlake
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: WG Review: Stay Home Meet Only Online (shmoo) S Moonesamy