[Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: (with COMMENT)
John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 13 July 2021 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietf.org
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4AC3A190E; Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:26:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: John Scudder via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting@ietf.org, shmoo-chairs@ietf.org, manycouches@ietf.org, amelia@centr.org, amelia@centr.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.34.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: John Scudder <jgs@juniper.net>
Message-ID: <162620801812.6466.1160695712719551591@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 13:26:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/VviJdbLosI4n_XmdwK7np8BtmLQ>
Subject: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "List for discussion of remote meeting attendance and virtual IETF meetings, as well as for SHMOO working group" <manycouches.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/manycouches/>
List-Post: <mailto:manycouches@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches>, <mailto:manycouches-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 20:26:59 -0000
John Scudder 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. A small suggestion for the Abstract: OLD: The IETF holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss and NEW: The IETF ordinarily holds three in-person meetings per year to discuss and 2. I think this may have been raised already, but just in case: * The number of critical support staff and contractors who can be at the venue. Does this adequately capture the need for critical volunteers as well? I'm thinking in particular of the NOC. 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. 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. 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". 6. Regarding This document introduces no new concerns for the security of internet s/internet/Internet/. The NYT style is wrong, wrong, wrong on this one. 7. Is the Acknowledgements section empty deliberately?
- [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on draf… John Scudder via Datatracker
- Re: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on … Martin Duke
- Re: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on … John Scudder
- Re: [Manycouches] John Scudder's No Objection on … Martin Duke