Stay Home Meet Occasionally Online
charter-ietf-shmoo-02
Yes
Murray Kucherawy
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Robert Wilton)
No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Erik Kline
Yes
Comment
(2020-06-18 for -00-00)
Not sent
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)
Murray Kucherawy
(was No Objection)
Yes
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-06-25 for -00-01)
Sent for earlier
Thanks for addressing my feedback.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-06-25 for -00-01)
Sent
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 IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2020-06-24 for -00-00)
Sent
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 IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2020-06-18 for -00-00)
Not sent
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
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Not sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-06-24 for -00-01)
Sent
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-01)
Not sent