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

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

I agree that this is a valid question, if you look at a report such as 
this one, in which certain kinds of bans are problematic and perhaps a 
pandemic is being used as an excuse (I'm sure we can come up with other 
examples):

In the context of RFC 8718b it makes sense to include 2.2.4 and other 
questions in 2.2. now that we have experience with other issues that can 
arise wrt venue decisions.

Limited scope of the question and its purpose will alleviate concerns 
raised by JORDI.

-M

On 5/13/20 5:35 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>
> But this is a transversal problem …
>
> This can be used as a way to blackmail IETF.
>
> What happens if a big country decides to ban it citizens participating 
> IETF ?
>
> What happens if a big company disagree with something about a document 
> and decides to ban its employees from participating IETF ?
>
> What if that happens because that country decided to manage the 
> pandemic (in this case, just an example), in a way which is different 
> to the rest of the world. Should the **rest** of the participants pay 
> for that? Will the IETF do the same if instead of a big country is a 
> small one? Is not that a discrimination?
>
> Should we agree that if those participants, even if they are from a 
> big country, or a big company, can still participate remotely, the 
> meeting should progress because the circumstances aren’t “venue 
> selection” but “supervening reasons” ?
>
> Is the cost of keeping the meeting even with less participants less 
> than the cost of cancellation, not only for the IETF itself but also 
> for the **rest of the participants**?
>
> Is the problem that many co-chairs, IESG members, or whatever, are 
> from the same company or country? This show us a very weak point! In 
> many other organizations you need to share the balance among different 
> countries or organization or a mix of that, to ensure that this will 
> not become a problem.
>
> I think there are many factors to consider, and I don’t think that all 
> the venue selection criteria can be applied the same for a 
> “supervening cancelation” (I’m not sure if this is the correct way to 
> say in english, but probably is well understood).
>
> Furthermore, if a big country starts a war with another country, and 
> it last longer than our normal contactual cycle for venues, we may 
> need to change the rules if the big country participants can’t come to 
> the meetings, otherwise NONE of the venues will fit! It looks an 
> irrealistic situation? Yes, right, how many people had considered that 
> the Covid-19 situation can happen?
>
> Do you remember when I was suggesting all this possible situations and 
> the need for insurance, etc., in 2006 and even someone was almost 
> calling me crazy?
>
> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
>
> Time demonstrated that I was not so wrong! I was just trying to look 
> for the worst situations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 13/5/20 23:19, "Manycouches en nombre de Mike Bishop" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> en 
> nombre de [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
>
> I disagree.  The overarching question is whether there exist factors 
> which will cause a substantial fraction of otherwise-probable 
> attendees not to attend..  If all attendees from a given country knew 
> that international travel would require quarantine upon their return 
> home, that affects their decision whether to attend.
>
> Now, the feasibility of evaluating /every/ country is questionable.  
> But countries from which a substantial portions of in-person attendees 
> have come in the past seems like a tractable evaluation.
>
> I like the proposed charter.  My main hesitation is that, just as 
> we’ve experimented with various schedule layouts over the last several 
> in-person IETF meetings, I suspect that online meeting schedules will 
> also be the subject of ongoing experimentation.  I’m dubious that BCPs 
> on those topics will remain “current” for very long or that we’ll be 
> able to make informed decisions until we have several of these under 
> our belt.
>
> *From:* Manycouches <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of 
> *JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:01 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and 
> proposed WG
>
> Hi Alissa, all,
>
> I’ve read the document and I agree with all the points.
>
> I’ve only one comment regarding 2.2.4. I don’t think we can neither 
> should evaluate other countries than the one hosting the meeting. 
> Otherwise, we end up in having problems every time **any** country has 
> issues.
>
> I guess all those inputs will belong to the SHMO WG, but just in case..
>
> I’ve also read the proposed charter and I agree as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 13/5/20 19:10, "ietf en nombre de Alissa Cooper" 
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> en nombre de 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> escribió:
>
> FYI. If this topic interests you, please consider joining the 
> discussion on [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>.
>
> Alissa
>
>     Begin forwarded message:
>
>     *From: *Alissa Cooper <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>     *Subject: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and
>     proposed WG*
>
>     *Date: *May 13, 2020 at 1:08:01 PM EDT
>
>     *To: *[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     Hi all,
>
>     Unsurprisingly, there has been a lot of discussion in the
>     community recently about planning for IETF meetings in times of
>     crisis and disruption. Below is a draft of a charter for a working
>     group, Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO), that could start to develop
>     long-term guidance of the sort it would have been nice to have as
>     the IESG, IRTF Chair, and IETF LLC have been faced with decisions
>     about canceling the in-person meetings for IETF 107 and 108. It is
>     somewhat in the MTGVENUE mold, as the idea is to provide
>     high-level guidance about meeting-related matters. Suresh Krishnan
>     and Russ Housley and I have been working on this together.
>
>
>     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
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>),
>     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.
>
>     We’re sharing this here on [e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]> to start community discussion about
>     it with the hope of either proposing a BOF or perhaps going
>     directly to chartering if there seems to be support in the
>     community for that.
>
>     We have also published an individual I-D
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cooper-shmo-questions-00>
>     that lists out the questions and considerations the IESG has been
>     facing when cancelling an in-person meeting, just to serve as a
>     basis for discussion and give the community an idea of the kinds
>     of questions where it would be helpful to have guidance.
>
>
>     Thanks,
>     Alissa, Suresh, and Russ
>
>
>     —
>
>     Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) Working Group
>     Draft Charter
>
>     The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the IETF's typical schedule of
>     three in-person meetings per year. It has caused the IETF to have
>     to convert previously scheduled in-person meetings into fully
>     online meetings. Although it is the first time the IETF's meeting
>     schedule has been disrupted, it is possible that other crises
>     could cause similar disruptions in the future.
>
>     The meeting planning activities that the IESG and the IETF LLC
>     engage in would benefit from IETF community consensus guidance
>     concerning novel aspects raised by these developments. The SHMO
>     working group is therefore chartered to provide high-level
>     guidance to the IESG and the IETF LLC concerning the following:
>
>     - Criteria for determining when a previously scheduled in-person
>     meeting should be canceled and replaced with a fully online
>     meeting. Similar to how RFC 8718 establishes community guidance
>     for the selection of meeting venues, the IESG and the LLC would
>     benefit from community consensus guidelines about which factors to
>     consider when deciding to cancel or replace an in-person meeting
>     and the relative importance of those factors. This work item is
>     expected to be fulfilled with the publication of a BCP.
>
>     - Meeting planning in the event that a previously scheduled
>     in-person meeting needs to be canceled and replaced with a fully
>     online meeting. Similar to how RFC 8719 establishes guidance for
>     the regional rotation of in-person meetings, the IESG and the LLC
>     would benefit from having community consensus guidelines about the
>     time zone selection, meeting length in days, and other high-level
>     scheduling aspects when an in-person meeting must be cancelled.
>     This work item is expected to be fulfilled with the publication of
>     one or more BCPs.
>
>     - Technology functionality requirements for the technologies the
>     IETF uses to support fully online meetings. This work item is
>     expected to be fulfilled with one or more informational RFCs.
>
>     The work of SHMO is expected to produce high-level principles, not
>     detailed operational plans. Specifications of details concerning
>     cancellation criteria, meeting technologies, and online meeting
>     agenda formats and content are out of scope. Discussion of
>     financial aspects of IETF meetings is out of scope. The goal is to
>     produce guidelines for the IESG and the IETF LLC to operationalize
>     while ensuring they have substantial flexibility to continue to
>     deliver and evolve the IETF meeting experience to best serve IETF
>     participants and the Internet community at large.
>
>     The disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may have been
>     mitigated by the time this group completes its work, but the
>     experience of handling meeting planning during the pandemic has
>     proven that having community consensus guidance at hand when
>     dealing with novel conditions in the future would be beneficial.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Manycouches mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
> _______________________________________________ Manycouches mailing 
> list [e-mail] 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged 
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive 
> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty 
> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of 
> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is 
> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you 
> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, 
> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be 
> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original 
> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Manycouches mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manycouches