Re: [Last-Call] Artart last call review of draft-ietf-shmoo-online-meeting-04

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

thanks for the review. Please see further below.

Mirja


On 05.12.22, 07:25, "Mark Nottingham via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Reviewer: Mark Nottingham
    Review result: Ready with Issues

    This draft is well-written and ready for publication once the following issues
    are considered:

    * Section 2 has the following statement:

       While satisfation was high right after the meetinng [_107-FEEDBACK],
       participants later indicated in mailing discussion that the period of
       intensive interims had a greater impact on their calendar than a
       single plenary meeting week, and in some meeting.

    That only tells half of the story, and embeds a bias towards highly-active
    standards people who wish to sit in on many meetings. It ignores that interims
    may be more suitable for a given group's participants.

    That's because interims can be scheduled in a more flexible way, because the
    Chairs can poll the group and find times that work for those who intend to
    participate, rather than being assigned a 1-hour slot in a 6-hour window that
    may or may not work for those in the group.

    So, I'd recommend qualifying "participants" with "some", and adding the
    countering factor explained above.

[MK] This section is only discussing the specific situation at IETF-107 where all regular wg session were pushed into interims over the six weeks after the main reduced schedule main session, and not interim in general.

[MK] There is further discussion about use of interim in the section on " Full vs. limited agenda".

[MK] Anyway, I added the word "some" in a PR that I just created to address some nits indicated to us by Brian Carpenter (thanks!). Do you think more is needed?

[MK] PR is here: https://github.com/mirjak/draft-shmoo-online-meeting/pull/24/files


    * Section 3.1 contains a table recommending timezones. It should be noted that
    changes in Daylight Savings practices (such as those that have passed the US
    Senate) might necessitate adjustments.

[MK] Interesting wasn't aware yet that this happened. I created a new PR and added this sentence:

"If Daylight Savings Practices change, as at the time of publication it is envisioned
 in future in the multiple countries, this table has to be adjusted."

[MK] Does that work for everybody?

    * Likewise, that table makes assumptions about the people who attend IETF
    meetings. For example, the proposed times aren't suitable for people in India,
    because two of the meeting times have them up in the middle of the night,
    rather than one.

[MK] Yes this was discussed but you are right that we should acknowledge this also in the doc. Also added some text:

"However, as participation is distributed globally,
 it needs to be acknowledged that restricting the scheme to three regions 
 for simplicity following roughly the idea of {{!RFC8179}} does not achieve the
 goal of 2 non-late-night sessions for all participants equally."

[MK] Okay?

[MK] PR is here: https://github.com/mirjak/draft-shmoo-online-meeting/pull/25/files

    Cheers,