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

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

Those improvements look good.

Thanks,


> On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:53 pm, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 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,
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/