Re: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Thanks John,

This PR is merged:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/15


On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 1:26 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 3. I reviewed the Github Editor's copy (as of July 13 16:00 EDT or so) and
> noticed that the text "These remedies are listed in approximate declining
> order
> of preference" was added to the end of §4. That directly conflicts with
> version
> 5's "presented in no particular order". I like the text in v5 and don't
> particularly like the proposed edit.
>

So the principles are in no particular order and the remedies are in rough
order. I don't feel
strongly one way or the other as to whether this sentence stays in. IIUC
this is the one thing
that may still need attention having merged the PR.


>
> 4. Regarding
>
>    The IETF SHOULD NOT reimburse registered attendees for unrecoverable
>    travel expenses (airfare, hotel deposits, etc).
>
> Has any consideration been given to adding some kind of text to the effect
> that
> attendees might choose to protect themselves against such losses with
> appropriate travel insurance? I appreciate that it would represent scope
> creep
> (it's not directly germane to "providing criteria for making this
> judgement")
> so I'm not bothered if this isn't adopted; however, I can see some
> benefits to
> including it.
>

I consider it out of scope, and I'd rather not recommend travel insurance
to people.


>
> 5. Regarding
>
>    *  Cancellation SHOULD result in a full refund to all participants.
>       It MAY be prorated if some portion of the sessions completed
>       without incident.
>
> I presume this has been discussed to death, and it's understood this may
> result
> in the IETF eating sunk costs? (Similar applies to the rest of the bullets
> in
> the list.) I do see there's an escape clause for "extraordinary threats to
> the
> solvency of the organization".
>

There was some discussion but this bit was not all that controversial. Jay
did a review and thought it was fine.


> 7. Is the Acknowledgements section empty deliberately?
>

D'oh! Fixed now.