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 01-00 and is now closed.

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

Alvaro Retana Yes

(1) The "publication of one or more BCPs" fulfills all the items, except the second one.  For consistency, please add something similar to the second item.  Alternatively, include a single statement (not specific to any item) along the lines of "The work of this WG is expected to be fulfilled with the publication of one or more BCPs."

(2) Milestones should be included.

Erik Kline Yes

Lars Eggert Yes

Martin Duke (was Block, No Objection) No Objection

Thanks for addressing my BLOCK.

I suspect that a strong consensus to change the meeting cadence will be elusive, but as the charter has that qualifier it's fine to include it.

Murray Kucherawy No Objection

I concur with Martin's BLOCK.

Robert Wilton No Objection

"Meeting planning for mostly online, or "hybrid" meetings"

- I would suggest changing this to just "Meeting planning for hybrid meetings", since they may apply even if participation isn't mostly online, i.e., strictly greater than 50%.

- I would also change "mostly-in-person" to just "in-person".  In the charter intro, it could clarify that "in-person" meetings have traditionally had some remote-attendence capabilities, but are optimized for in-person participation, and then use "in-person" consistently.

- Should the charter cover providing community guidance about what level of remote participation support is expected/required for "in-person" meetings?

Regarding:

  Meeting planning for meetings where special measures are required to manage
  community health due to venue specific restrictions and/or to comply with any
  local health regulations, e.g., the need for increased spacing, ventilation
  requirements etc. This work item is expected to be fulfilled with the
  publication of one or more BCPs.
  
- I also agree with the other ADs that it is unclear what this guidance could look like.

Thanks,
Rob

Roman Danyliw (was Block) No Objection

Please provide milestones to cover this new work.

Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Objection

Éric Vyncke No Objection

Thank you for the work to draft this charter in very challenging times... with multiple inputs from the community, getting even a rough consensus is not easy on this topic...

I like the change to "Stay Home Meet *Occasionally* Online" ;-)

Unsure whether the word "hybrid" is used rightfully in 'mostly online, or “hybrid,” meetings'. Suggest to keep only "mostly online" (see also the use of "mostly-in-person" later in the text).

About "manage community health"... so no more ice creams and cookies only fruits ? ;-) Suggest to reword with "sanitary conditions". Anyway, I wonder whether the IETF community has the capacity to author a BCP on this topic (would it create some liability ?)

Still missing any milestone...

John Scudder Abstain

- I appreciate the improvement to the name.

- I agree with Martin’s concern regarding the futility of the IETF writing BCPs regarding public health measures.

- There is no statement of how the “meeting planning for mostly online… meetings” work item is to be fulfilled. Since the others say they’ll result in one or more BCPs, I’m left to wonder about this one.

Francesca Palombini No Record

I have the same concern as Martin and other ADs about the feasibility of producing an IETF document in the form of BCP describing the high-level principles the IESG and IETF LLC regarding health guidelines.

(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection

agree with Alvaro's comment