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

[Martin Duke <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Some of your comments are addressed in this PR, already merged:
https://github.com/martinduke/draft-ietf-shmoo-cancel-meeting/pull/13

but I don't quite follow this bit:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 8:34 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> -- Section 3 --
> "if the projected attendance is sufficient" while attendance is a big part
> of
> the decision, it is probably not the only one (I can imagine other
> conditions
> to have a real "live" meeting)
>
> -- Section 3.2 --
> I was about to DISCUSS the point about "projected attendance is high
> enough"
> because it is not only about sheer number of attendees but also about
> diversity, e.g., IETF-112 with only EU attendees will not be very fruitful.
>

Section 3.2 specifically says:

The IESG is discouraged from relying on a simple head count of expected
> meeting attendance. Even dramatically smaller meetings with large remote
> participation may be successful. In addition to the LLC's estimate, the
> IESG might consider:
>
> Is there a critical mass of key personnel at most working group meetings
> to leverage the advantages of in-person meetings, even if many participants
> are remote?
>
> - Are many working groups and research groups largely unaffected by the
> restrictions, so that they can operate effectively?
>

so I believe it is not asking to the IESG to simply look at the raw number
of attendees. Some other logistical and safety considerations are discussed
in Section 3.1 as they are the LLC's responsibility.

As for geographic diversity, the IESG is certainly welcome to consider this
in its decision. I don't think we have consensus to explicitly mention
diversity as an IESG criterion in this document. Personally, if IETF 112
was only EU attendees I am not sure I would vote to cancel.