Stay Home Meet Occasionally Online
charter-ietf-shmoo-02

• Ready for external review (00-00)
• Approve (00-02)
• Ready for external review (01-00)
• Approve (01-01)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"

Alvaro Retana Yes

Erik Kline Yes

This comment was originally entered for the 00-00 version of SHMO and copied to the SHMOO charter.

[[ nits ]]

* s/cancelled/canceled/, for consistency (or vice versa)

Martin Duke Yes

This comment was originally entered for the 00-00 version of SHMO and copied to the SHMOO charter.

Non-blocking, but I would prefer to leave the “consider less than 3 meetings” bit for a recharter. There is a lot on this WG’s plate and that item attracts a fundamentally different kind of participant.

s/Technology functionality requirements/Functional requirements

Murray Kucherawy (was No Objection) Yes

Robert Wilton Yes

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Thanks for addressing my feedback.

Éric Vyncke No Objection

I share Ben's concern about the eligibility question: it needs to be addressed somehow; so, let's not forget about this issue.

My own concern is the work item around the fees. Asking the community feedback and producing informational documents seems to say "What do you think? Anyway, I will go my own way!' as informational document will not be binding.

There are no milestones ;)

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Roman has some good comments; thanks.

A minor editorial thing in addition: two instances of "SHMO" in the body need to be changed to "SHMOO".

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) Yes

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) Yes

(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection

If we're intentionally leaving the eligibility question out of scope for
SHMOO (per the previous discussion), what is the story for actually
advancing the eligibility work?  I don't remember seeing anything go by
that implied that we should prioritize SHMO and drop the eligibility
work, and would be sad if that is what happens.

"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" seems to be
setting up almost an open slate for potential "novel conditions" that
the WG will consider.  Is there any sort of additional guidance to give,
or are we just implicitly assuming that the guidelines that would have
been useful for the pandemic situation would be relatively transferrable
to other "novel conditions"?

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection