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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

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.
>
>
>