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.