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

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> 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 [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.

...
eligibility-discuss is not a WG, so it's been hard to arrange a virtual
interim, and I think that as a result, we have gone as far as that we can.
I would prefer that it be in-scope for SHMO!!

I also wonder if "mtgvenue" shouldn't just be rechartered to do this work.
We are basically trying to establish a higher-order set of meeting "venue"
criteria.

    > - 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.

Thank you for looping manycouches in, I think that manycouches has had a very
good conversation about what facilities we need online. I.e. what should our
online venue look like?

    > 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.

This is insufficiently detailed for me to understand what details are out of
scope.  I can understand that we aren't writing an RFP for tools development,
but it seems that we actually do want to establish some requirements.
The IPv6 as a mandatory requirement discussion would seem to fit.

    > Discussion of financial aspects
    > of IETF meetings is out of scope.

I believe that we need to have some appreciation for the financial limits we
would be working under.

    > 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.

I agree; I believe that we should operate under the assumption that the
disruption will continue in a variety of forms until the end of 2021, but
that we should aggressively (with twice-month virtual interims) attempt to
produce a WGLC document by September/October timeframe.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-