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

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

None of those scenarios are any different with these considerations.  I don’t see any technical barrier to a country criminalizing participation in the IETF, beyond hopefully that country having overriding legal principles which would make that difficult.  Nor is there any barrier to a company refusing to fund IETF participation (many do) or penalizing employees for participating on their own time and at their own expense.  The only possible counter-measure to that is the value which the IETF provides to the Internet.

Likewise, the over-representation of certain countries is a known issue in the IETF independent of this discussion.  Projects to increase participation from the rest of the world seem to be in active development, and they should continue to be.

The questions you raise about what circumstances would justify cancellation versus continuing with fewer attendees seem squarely within the proposed WG’s remit to issue guidance on, and I think wars and other disruptions to free travel probably fall within the set of circumstances that could justify a cancellation.

From: Manycouches <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:35 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Manycouches] Stay Home Meet Online (SHMO) draft and proposed WG

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]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 4:01 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[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]<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.