Hi Mirja, Those improvements look good. Thanks, > On 5 Dec 2022, at 10:53 pm, Mirja Kuehlewind <mirja.kuehlewind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > thanks for the review. Please see further below. > > Mirja > > > On 05.12.22, 07:25, "Mark Nottingham via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Mark Nottingham > Review result: Ready with Issues > > This draft is well-written and ready for publication once the following issues > are considered: > > * Section 2 has the following statement: > > While satisfation was high right after the meetinng [_107-FEEDBACK], > participants later indicated in mailing discussion that the period of > intensive interims had a greater impact on their calendar than a > single plenary meeting week, and in some meeting. > > That only tells half of the story, and embeds a bias towards highly-active > standards people who wish to sit in on many meetings. It ignores that interims > may be more suitable for a given group's participants. > > That's because interims can be scheduled in a more flexible way, because the > Chairs can poll the group and find times that work for those who intend to > participate, rather than being assigned a 1-hour slot in a 6-hour window that > may or may not work for those in the group. > > So, I'd recommend qualifying "participants" with "some", and adding the > countering factor explained above. > > [MK] This section is only discussing the specific situation at IETF-107 where all regular wg session were pushed into interims over the six weeks after the main reduced schedule main session, and not interim in general. > > [MK] There is further discussion about use of interim in the section on " Full vs. limited agenda". > > [MK] Anyway, I added the word "some" in a PR that I just created to address some nits indicated to us by Brian Carpenter (thanks!). Do you think more is needed? > > [MK] PR is here: https://github.com/mirjak/draft-shmoo-online-meeting/pull/24/files > > > * Section 3.1 contains a table recommending timezones. It should be noted that > changes in Daylight Savings practices (such as those that have passed the US > Senate) might necessitate adjustments. > > [MK] Interesting wasn't aware yet that this happened. I created a new PR and added this sentence: > > "If Daylight Savings Practices change, as at the time of publication it is envisioned > in future in the multiple countries, this table has to be adjusted." > > [MK] Does that work for everybody? > > * Likewise, that table makes assumptions about the people who attend IETF > meetings. For example, the proposed times aren't suitable for people in India, > because two of the meeting times have them up in the middle of the night, > rather than one. > > [MK] Yes this was discussed but you are right that we should acknowledge this also in the doc. Also added some text: > > "However, as participation is distributed globally, > it needs to be acknowledged that restricting the scheme to three regions > for simplicity following roughly the idea of {{!RFC8179}} does not achieve the > goal of 2 non-late-night sessions for all participants equally." > > [MK] Okay? > > [MK] PR is here: https://github.com/mirjak/draft-shmoo-online-meeting/pull/25/files > > Cheers, > > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
