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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

We chatted and now I understand your point. Diff is here:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/commit/45ea0e603084fda125897f8b9d325f032dcf169c

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:44 PM Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> So this is an important thing to understand about the content of the
> proposal.
>
> Sec 3.1 is about LLC Critieria. It is NOT the role of the LLC to say that
> we have to cancel the meeting because 20% or 50% or 80% of attendees can't
> make it. That is up to the IESG and IRTF chair.
>
> The LLC primarily collects this information as a staff input to the
> IESG/IRTF decision process. It also helps the LLC figure out if it can
> actually get staff to the venue to support the meeting, which *is* a
> criterion they apply.
>
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:32 PM Francesca Palombini <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks. About C2: my point was that “reachability of venue” should be one
>> of the criteria. This could be because of travel bans, quarantine
>> requirements etc, which could (and have) directly impacted flights for
>> example: what I meant is – if attendees can’t get to a venue anymore, this
>> should be evaluated and reported as one of the criteria for cancellation
>> (bans was only an example of why flights and other transportations might be
>> affected). I’d think being able to reach the venue would be a criterion,
>> aligned with the ability to host a meeting safely (which is currently
>> reported as the first criterion).
>>
>>
>>
>> Francesca
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 21:24
>> *To: *Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>
>> *Cc: *The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]"
>> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <
>> [e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
>> Amelia Andersdotter <[e-mail]>
>> *Subject: *Re: Francesca Palombini's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: (with COMMENT)
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Francesa!
>>
>>
>>
>> C1 and C3 are addressed in this PR, which already merged:
>>
>> https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/10
>> <https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3713258e-68881ccd-37136515-861fcb972bfc-76caa45374c7be6c&q=1&e=bb371ce4-3ad0-4698-bca6-d653b7c83e6f&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fmartinduke%2Fdraft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting%2Fpull%2F10>
>>
>>
>>
>> As for (C2), "(travel ban) - I don't think that's covered by any of the
>> other criteria. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The existence of bans, in and of itself, is not an LLC criteria for
>> cancellation. The LLC only considers it in evaluating if staff can go to
>> the venue to support the meeting.
>>
>>
>>
>> The LLC primarily gathers this info to report to the IESG/IRTF Chair so
>> that the IESG can make an informed decision on whether the meeting is
>> viable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this helps!
>>
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 10:20 AM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: No Objection
>>
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>>
>>
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>
>>
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/
>>
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Thank you for this document. Some minor comments below.
>>
>> Francesca
>>
>> 1. -----
>>
>>    *  An economic crisis could sharply reduce resources available for
>>       travel.
>>
>> FP: While the other examples seem clear and somewhat more easy to judge,
>> this
>> looks very vague to me: it might be better to explicitly state something
>> on the
>> sort of "... resource available for travel, leading to a much lower
>> expected
>> low attendance." This is still vague, but in my opinion gives a better
>> idea of
>> what to look for, and should be in line with later text about impact on
>> attendance.
>>
>> 2. -----
>>
>> Section 3.1
>>
>> FP: As for the criteria, I was expecting to see something about
>> reachability of
>> the venue, especially because of this sentence:
>>
>>    The LLC will collect information about the likely impact to in-person
>>    attendance of national travel advisories, national and corporate
>>    travel bans, quarantine requirements, etc. and report the results to
>>
>> (travel ban) - I don't think that's covered by any of the other criteria.
>>
>> 3. -----
>>
>> Section 4
>>
>> FP: It seems that the subsection have a specific order - from most
>> preferred to
>> least preferred. It should be spelled out.
>>
>>
>>