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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi!

All of your comments are in this PR, already merged:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/11

except:
Comment (2) about the IRTF chair references was addressed in a previous
review, where I added several more references. For brevity, the IRTF chair
is not mentioned *every* time we refer to the IESG. If you feel that's
important, I can make the change.

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 1:47 PM Alvaro Retana via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Alvaro Retana 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:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> (1) §3.1:
>
>    The LLC SHOULD cancel a meeting if it judges a meeting to be
>    logistically impossible or inconsistent with its fiduciary
>    responsibilities.
>
> s/LLC SHOULD cancel a meeting/LLC SHOULD cancel an in-person meeting and
> explore potential remedies
>
> Given the possible remedies, it seems that logistic issues (for example)
> may be
> addressed by virtualizing or postponement.  IOW, the in-person part of the
> meeting may be canceled.  I feel that I may be missing some additional
> context...
>
> (2) §3.2: The first paragraph mentions both the IESG and IRTF Chair, but
> the
> others only mention the IESG.  Is this an oversight (or maybe shorthand),
> or an
> indication that the assessment is driven only by the feasibility of an IETF
> meeting?
>
> (3) §3.2: It seems to me that (similar to §3.1), there should be text
> indicating when the IESG should cancel the in-person meeting.  Something
> like
> this:
>
>    The IESG SHOULD cancel the in-person meeting if the assessment
>    indicates that attendance won't be high enough to be of benefit.
>
> (4) If the meeting is virtualized, then no one really is remote --
> everyone is
> online/virtual.
>
> §4.2: s/fully remote/fully online
>
> §4.4: s/even attend remotely/even attend online
>
> §5: s/meeting becomes remote/meeting is virtualized
>
> §5: s/for a remote meeting/for an online meeting
>
> §5: s/attend a remote meeting/attend an online meeting
>
> (5) §4.3: Is there a reason to not use normative language in this sentence:
>
>    The new end date of a meeting must be at least 30 days before the
>    beginning of the following IETF meeting, and a meeting must begin
>    no earlier than 1 month after the postponement announcement.
>
>
>
>