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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Thu, 14 May 2020 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mike@fresheez.com>
X-Original-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EFC3A0C2D for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rk8_v96ZI_Zr for <manycouches@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x431.google.com (mail-pf1-x431.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F9173A0B23 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x431.google.com with SMTP id z1so1683990pfn.3 for <manycouches@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mtcc-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=N4YW5p19Dcoa9im0/gFW30n0Sl4mbMsWZp7xEiAj1Yo=; b=IE2kXosRpWfQtIpmzAFM71yKSw0ETScrN9hFCpaSzIk0/tO7AMHgQBOMOkru/2SiTY O1jv0HofKhsdmdmLIe+QYAtj7hqWowmkVig90zJa9rIlviSuo7Fr12Fu6bMjyyKsqQq5 LuWS+8QKIvkuNL3BMmPf3ijKbLn6HYcOeS6MFVUXAJO5AJEui8cqF1jGMd5T8kqkojw2 aQ3Jaay2eAhnzJc8bdtnXMFRad3QpHn1dpEcOc/tJxD2sA8SREKyv4IHW23SuZf1IXUo pqN7uw+urp3LBA0J8Fe1+ypInupRXGb2+Mzo4IvdCwwzkodStp5aXXhemul+WGNHdwdx Omzg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=N4YW5p19Dcoa9im0/gFW30n0Sl4mbMsWZp7xEiAj1Yo=; b=WV6jBvxbiMaK5yPq9jfv6HM9rZFiA0W3XQPn2dd2ySrnPxSbc5VEOjCvV29ZXzIIKw r168vQN9/i2NNYYX2efP98eBdrYf2GZlTqrqeB/AnfGk9o/e8bHDyvcWfxLddQbVJNA3 KLo983ASjubtljOjZi1kboszjFOansSXP0LUIK2ou+b3I+eZdvllBsn3QsuU1313etaP G0upGvU1FjX6Bmpek0z/shO1ji20s82oE9Dc5Ex5ImkxdsoBCev4gUJFK+Nl33ZgTTUC jKbBm2hLLAEv2qk+UXy8X414f/hS11Nl4eesLErBLOHC2/iNJs2FhV2hktUL7pWgCZwM nM1A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5331r2szSq4XK0hQhNSIstaRJDU1Kk1BMlPPAJdgMaeBLnCBnJn0 j6Ym6s/m+6vPFzJ2TioVcbnTYJ7Jqsg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx18ZpXY62gvQpLafTuBnBz0GvmAKOaT9yCjitqT+CqfUy/8ZwbZduHQp+Y++zlPrJYdm5fsQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:a363:: with SMTP id v35mr4704290pgn.95.1589480193219; Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MichaelsMacBook.lan ([170.75.129.87]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i14sm1575234pfo.162.2020.05.14.11.16.31 for <manycouches@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
To: manycouches@ietf.org
References: <E103897C-F9D9-4ED3-AB45-FD2967D7F49E@cooperw.in> <ff2f4862-6e35-84fb-4a63-17b0a7dc917d@cs.tcd.ie> <842077E3-30D6-42F6-839F-ECCD9DD21567@ischool.berkeley.edu>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <7a1a1da1-cdbd-26f0-9b4d-09240eb94c7b@mtcc.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 11:16:30 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <842077E3-30D6-42F6-839F-ECCD9DD21567@ischool.berkeley.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/manycouches/XN7VIpfNiZXc66DOa4ktaLgPNb4>
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and proposed WG
X-BeenThere: manycouches@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List is a design team list to identify issues that would arise should an IETF meeting ever be held with O\(1000\) 'remote' participants." <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: Thu, 14 May 2020 18:16:37 -0000

On 5/14/20 10:32 AM, Nick Doty wrote:
> On May 13, 2020, at 1:58 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>> On 13/05/2020 18:08, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> 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 elgibility-discuss@ietf.org
>>> <mailto:elgibility-discuss@ietf.org>), 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.
>> FWIW, I'm supportive. I'm also ok with the charter not
>> including "should we keep planning 3 f2f meetings per
>> year?" but I'd be even happier if that question were
>> also included as in scope, perhaps relating to a milestone
>> that's scheduled to be discussed only after the initial
>> work is done.
> +1 that this work seems useful and it would seem even more useful to me if we also included discussion about whether we plan as many f2f meetings and what alternatives there are. Even just for cancellation of previously scheduled in-person meetings, we will at some point have a meeting that could feasibly go ahead (that is, might have enough attendees and might not be an enormous direct risk to public health) and IESG et al will have to decide how holding that in-person meeting would compare to a variety of Stay Home Meet Online alternatives. Shouldn’t we discuss those alternatives in the same Stay Home Meet Online group? And if not -- and I mean this as a genuine question -- where should that work take place instead?


So the obvious question is how success would be measured? Sounds like we 
may have several opportunities to measure it if we knew what to measure.

Mike