Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and proposed WG

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

LINK! 
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-16/china-coronavirus-black-african-evictions

On 5/14/20 10:20 AM, Mallory Knodel wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I agree that this is a valid question, if you look at a report such as 
> this one, in which certain kinds of bans are problematic and perhaps a 
> pandemic is being used as an excuse (I'm sure we can come up with 
> other examples):
>
> In the context of RFC 8718b it makes sense to include 2.2.4 and other 
> questions in 2.2. now that we have experience with other issues that 
> can arise wrt venue decisions.
>
> Limited scope of the question and its purpose will alleviate concerns 
> raised by JORDI.
>
> -M
>
> On 5/13/20 5:35 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>
>> But this is a transversal problem …
>>
>> This can be used as a way to blackmail IETF.
>>
>> What happens if a big country decides to ban it citizens 
>> participating IETF ?
>>
>> What happens if a big company disagree with something about a 
>> document and decides to ban its employees from participating IETF ?
>>
>> What if that happens because that country decided to manage the 
>> pandemic (in this case, just an example), in a way which is different 
>> to the rest of the world. Should the **rest** of the participants pay 
>> for that? Will the IETF do the same if instead of a big country is a 
>> small one? Is not that a discrimination?
>>
>> Should we agree that if those participants, even if they are from a 
>> big country, or a big company, can still participate remotely, the 
>> meeting should progress because the circumstances aren’t “venue 
>> selection” but “supervening reasons” ?
>>
>> Is the cost of keeping the meeting even with less participants less 
>> than the cost of cancellation, not only for the IETF itself but also 
>> for the **rest of the participants**?
>>
>> Is the problem that many co-chairs, IESG members, or whatever, are 
>> from the same company or country? This show us a very weak point! In 
>> many other organizations you need to share the balance among 
>> different countries or organization or a mix of that, to ensure that 
>> this will not become a problem.
>>
>> I think there are many factors to consider, and I don’t think that 
>> all the venue selection criteria can be applied the same for a 
>> “supervening cancelation” (I’m not sure if this is the correct way to 
>> say in english, but probably is well understood).
>>
>> Furthermore, if a big country starts a war with another country, and 
>> it last longer than our normal contactual cycle for venues, we may 
>> need to change the rules if the big country participants can’t come 
>> to the meetings, otherwise NONE of the venues will fit! It looks an 
>> irrealistic situation? Yes, right, how many people had considered 
>> that the Covid-19 situation can happen?
>>
>> Do you remember when I was suggesting all this possible situations 
>> and the need for insurance, etc., in 2006 and even someone was almost 
>> calling me crazy?
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
>>
>> Time demonstrated that I was not so wrong! I was just trying to look 
>> for the worst situations.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jordi
>>
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> El 13/5/20 23:19, "Manycouches en nombre de Mike Bishop" 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> en nombre de [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> 
>> escribió:
>>
>> I disagree. The overarching question is whether there exist factors 
>> which will cause a substantial fraction of otherwise-probable 
>> attendees not to attend..  If all attendees from a given country knew 
>> that international travel would require quarantine upon their return 
>> home, that affects their decision whether to attend.
>>
>> Now, the feasibility of evaluating /every/ country is questionable.  
>> But countries from which a substantial portions of in-person 
>> attendees have come in the past seems like a tractable evaluation.
>>
>> I like the proposed charter.  My main hesitation is that, just as 
>> we’ve experimented with various schedule layouts over the last 
>> several in-person IETF meetings, I suspect that online meeting 
>> schedules will also be the subject of ongoing experimentation.  I’m 
>> dubious that BCPs on those topics will remain “current” for very long 
>> or that we’ll be able to make informed decisions until we have 
>> several of these under our belt.
>>
>> *From:* Manycouches <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of 
>> *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:01 PM
>> *To:* [e-mail]
>> *Subject:* Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and 
>> proposed WG
>>
>> Hi Alissa, all,
>>
>> I’ve read the document and I agree with all the points.
>>
>> I’ve only one comment regarding 2.2.4. I don’t think we can neither 
>> should evaluate other countries than the one hosting the meeting. 
>> Otherwise, we end up in having problems every time **any** country 
>> has issues.
>>
>> I guess all those inputs will belong to the SHMO WG, but just in case..
>>
>> I’ve also read the proposed charter and I agree as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jordi
>>
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> El 13/5/20 19:10, "ietf en nombre de Alissa Cooper" 
>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> en nombre de 
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
>>
>> FYI. If this topic interests you, please consider joining the 
>> discussion on [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
>>
>> Alissa
>>
>>     Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>     *From: *Alissa Cooper <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>
>>     *Subject: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and
>>     proposed WG*
>>
>>     *Date: *May 13, 2020 at 1:08:01 PM EDT
>>
>>     *To: *[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>     Hi all,
>>
>>     Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of discussion in the
>>     community recently about planning for IETF meetings in times of
>>     crisis and disruption. Below is a draft of a charter for a
>>     working group, Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO), that could start to
>>     develop long-term guidance of the sort it would have been nice to
>>     have as the IESG, IRTF Chair, and IETF LLC have been faced with
>>     decisions about canceling the in-person meetings for IETF 107 and
>>     108. It is somewhat in the MTGVENUE mold, as the idea is to
>>     provide high-level guidance about meeting-related matters. Suresh
>>     Krishnan and Russ Housley and I have been working on this together.
>>
>>
>>     The charter is scoped narrowly to only deal with cancellation of
>>     previously planned in-person meetings. There are other related
>>     topics that need community guidance — the nomcom eligibility
>>     criteria that is already being worked on (see
>>     [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>), the overall meeting
>>     cadence and mix of in-person versus virtual meetings in the
>>     future, how to craft the meeting experience at an in-person
>>     meeting when significantly more people are remote, etc. But just
>>     the cancellation topics on their own will require a bunch of work
>>     and may attract different participants than those interested in
>>     other topics, so the boundary is drawn there.
>>
>>     We’re sharing this here on [e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]> to start community discussion about
>>     it with the hope of either proposing a BOF or perhaps going
>>     directly to chartering if there seems to be support in the
>>     community for that.
>>
>>     We have also published an individual I-D
>>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cooper-shmo-questions-00>
>>     that lists out the questions and considerations the IESG has been
>>     facing when cancelling an in-person meeting, just to serve as a
>>     basis for discussion and give the community an idea of the kinds
>>     of questions where it would be helpful to have guidance.
>>
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     Alissa, Suresh, and Russ
>>
>>
>>     —
>>
>>     Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) Working Group
>>     Draft Charter
>>
>>     The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the IETF's typical schedule
>>     of three in-person meetings per year. It has caused the IETF to
>>     have to convert previously scheduled in-person meetings into
>>     fully online meetings. Although it is the first time the IETF's
>>     meeting schedule has been disrupted, it is possible that other
>>     crises could cause similar disruptions in the future.
>>
>>     The meeting planning activities that the IESG and the IETF LLC
>>     engage in would benefit from IETF community consensus guidance
>>     concerning novel aspects raised by these developments. The SHMO
>>     working group is therefore chartered to provide high-level
>>     guidance to the IESG and the IETF LLC concerning the following:
>>
>>     - Criteria for determining when a previously scheduled in-person
>>     meeting should be canceled and replaced with a fully online
>>     meeting. Similar to how RFC 8718 establishes community guidance
>>     for the selection of meeting venues, the IESG and the LLC would
>>     benefit from community consensus guidelines about which factors
>>     to consider when deciding to cancel or replace an in-person
>>     meeting and the relative importance of those factors. This work
>>     item is expected to be fulfilled with the publication of a BCP.
>>
>>     - Meeting planning in the event that a previously scheduled
>>     in-person meeting needs to be canceled and replaced with a fully
>>     online meeting. Similar to how RFC 8719 establishes guidance for
>>     the regional rotation of in-person meetings, the IESG and the LLC
>>     would benefit from having community consensus guidelines about
>>     the time zone selection, meeting length in days, and other
>>     high-level scheduling aspects when an in-person meeting must be
>>     cancelled. This work item is expected to be fulfilled with the
>>     publication of one or more BCPs.
>>
>>     - Technology functionality requirements for the technologies the
>>     IETF uses to support fully online meetings. This work item is
>>     expected to be fulfilled with one or more informational RFCs.
>>
>>     The work of SHMO is expected to produce high-level principles,
>>     not detailed operational plans. Specifications of details
>>     concerning cancellation criteria, meeting technologies, and
>>     online meeting agenda formats and content are out of scope.
>>     Discussion of financial aspects of IETF meetings is out of scope.
>>     The goal is to produce guidelines for the IESG and the IETF LLC
>>     to operationalize while ensuring they have substantial
>>     flexibility to continue to deliver and evolve the IETF meeting
>>     experience to best serve IETF participants and the Internet
>>     community at large.
>>
>>     The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have been
>>     mitigated by the time this group completes its work, but the
>>     experience of handling meeting planning during the pandemic has
>>     proven that having community consensus guidance at hand when
>>     dealing with novel conditions in the future would be beneficial.
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Manycouches mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing 
>> list [e-mail] 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> The IPv6 Company
>>
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
>> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
>> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents 
>> of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
>> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
>> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
>> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
>> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
>> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Manycouches mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches