Markdown Version | Session Recording

Session Date/Time: 12 Nov 2021 12:00

shmoo

Summary

The shmoo Working Group session at IETF 112 focused on updates to existing drafts and the ongoing re-chartering process. Key discussions revolved around the proposed time zone optimization for fully online meetings, updates to the IETF Hackathon draft, and community input on potential changes to the working group's charter, particularly regarding hybrid meetings and the long-term cadence of IETF sessions. Decisions were made to initiate adoption calls for one draft and move forward with the re-chartering process.

Key Discussion Points

Online Meeting Organization Draft (draft-ietf-shmoo-online-meetings by Martin and Maria)

• Purpose: The draft serves as a guide for setting up online meetings, codifying traditions developed over the past 1.5 years of virtual IETF meetings.
• Time Zone Selection: A significant change is the proposed time zone optimization. Instead of optimizing for a single time zone, the system aims to optimize for two time zones in a three-meeting rotation, ensuring that any of the three official IETF regions (Asia, Europe, North America) experiences a "graveyard shift" meeting slot only once per year. Specific UTC times for Northern Summer/Winter were presented, along with a scoring system based on "pain points" for local hours.
  • Discussion clarified that the optimization is for three regions as defined by an RFC, not necessarily four distinct time zones.
  • Concerns were raised about India potentially suffering more in the scoring, and suggestions were made for alternating Asia-Pacific time zones (e.g., India and Japan) in the scoring.
• Socialization in Online Meetings:
  • The draft acknowledges the inherent trade-off between the increased accessibility of online meetings and the loss of social interaction. It encourages experimentation but offers no definitive solutions.
  • Ted suggested that IETF meetings now feel like "just another meeting" on the calendar, lacking the impromptu side discussions that naturally occur in-person. He advocated for a lower-cost, always-on virtual space (like an improved Jabber room) to facilitate spontaneous interaction, beyond tools like Gather.
  • Lars suggested considering 1-hour breaks during the meeting day to allow for socializing and eating away from the screen, acknowledging the trade-off with overall meeting length.
  • Jay proposed experimenting with tools like Gather as the primary social "home base," from which attendees would enter meeting sessions, to encourage more social interaction between sessions.
  • Mallory highlighted the Boston hub experience where local in-person meetups during IETF were difficult to organize due to needing separate presentations and venues.
• Hybrid Meeting Considerations:
  • Andrew argued that hybrid meetings should prioritize the time zone of the physical host venue, rather than applying the fully online meeting time zone rotation, to avoid "dumbing down" the in-person experience.
  • The discussion highlighted the lack of community consensus on high-level principles for hybrid meetings, such as how to balance in-person benefits with remote experience, or whether to adapt meeting lengths. Lars encouraged community input on these topics.

Hackathon Draft (draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon by Charles)

• Update: The draft has completed Working Group Last Call (WGLC). All comments received were addressed, and a new version has been posted. The draft covers practices for running IETF hackathons in both in-person and online-only formats, including hybrid aspects.
• Key Changes:
  • Hack.net (Remote Networking): Text was added to clarify that Hack.net, the experimental remote networking solution for hackathons, is still experimental. Security considerations were added, noting potential new attack vectors but emphasizing reliance on Data Tracker account binding and community trust. Misuse will be handled similarly to in-person network misuse.
  • References: Inline Markdown links to external resources (wiki pages, web pages) were converted into a formal informative references section. Charles sought feedback on the correct approach for this.
• Next Steps: Charles aims to progress the draft soon and encourages further review, particularly on the reference formatting.

Charter Re-scoping

• Process: Chairs (Suresh, Mallory) collected and incorporated all community comments on the proposed charter changes.
• Proposed Changes:
  • Remove COVID-19 specific language, making the charter more general.
  • Add principles and considerations for hybrid meetings.
  • Change the status of the "remote-fee" draft to a BCP (Best Current Practice).
  • Remove the work item on "functional requirements for technologies" (related to the "hum draft") due to a lack of community engagement and drafts.
• Discussion on Charter Scope:
  • Lars affirmed that a smaller charter, shedding items that have lost energy, is not a failure but a chance for better guidance.
  • Discussion occurred on whether high-level requirements for improving socialization (as raised by Ted) would still be in scope under the revised charter. The consensus was that if not explicitly out of scope, experimentation and proposals are welcome, but concrete draft text is needed for evaluation.
• Meeting Cadence and Carbon Footprint:
  • Elliot Lear's earlier draft ("we got to stop meeting like this") on changing the in-person meeting cadence was revisited. Lars provided context from ISG/IAB/LLC discussions, noting that a immediate change in cadence post-COVID is difficult to imagine, and there's no clear consensus on alternatives (e.g., replacing one meeting with online, adding more online meetings).
  • Phil expressed strong preference for meeting in-person no more than once a year, questioning the overall IETF meeting structure's effectiveness for engineers. He also linked carbon offsetting to symbolic gestures to remind of environmental importance.
  • Jay highlighted that surveys show strong preference for in-person meetings, running costs are similar (but attendee/sponsor costs differ), and efforts are underway for carbon calculations/offsets. He stressed ongoing work to make the remote experience (e.g., single mic queue in MeetEcho) less "second class."
  • Ian noted that corporate travel cuts (e.g., Cisco, Ericsson) mean many will be forced to attend remotely, making it crucial that the remote experience is not "second rate."
• Interims vs. Main Meetings:
  • Andrew raised concerns that a shift to more interim-based work could be divisive for the community, harmful to diversity (due to convenience scheduling), and reduce cross-area perspectives gained at plenaries. He suggested applying time zone rotation and tooling guidelines to interims to regularize and improve their remote experience.
  • Martin acknowledged the value of interims for deep technical discussion but recounted IETF 107 (interim-heavy) as onerous and non-inclusive in terms of time zones. He stressed not "kneecapping" plenary productivity by eliminating valuable side conversations.
  • Maria emphasized that interims and main meeting week sessions have different dynamics and can achieve different goals. She encouraged chairs to use both appropriately based on the working group's phase (e.g., interims for late-stage issue resolution, plenaries for early-stage broad feedback).
  • Suresh concluded that effectiveness depends on the group, with some groups (e.g., IoT cluster) naturally integrated and suited for interims, while others are not.

Decisions and Action Items

• Online Meeting Organization Draft: The Working Group will initiate an adoption call for draft-ietf-shmoo-online-meetings on the mailing list next week.
• Charter Re-scoping: The updated charter text will be sent to the mailing list next week for a 1-week cool-off period to allow for final review. After this, it will be forwarded to the Area Director (Lars) to kick off the formal re-chartering process.
• Hackathon Draft: Charles will finalize the informative references section in draft-ietf-shmoo-hackathon and aim to progress the draft soon.

Next Steps

• Chairs: Send the updated charter re-scoping text to the mailing list.
• Chairs: Initiate a Working Group adoption call for draft-ietf-shmoo-online-meetings.
• Charles: Seek final feedback on the informative references section in the hackathon draft and aim for progression.
• Community: Provide input on high-level guidance for hybrid meetings (e.g., time zone policies, session lengths, social integration).
• Community: Propose text suggestions for incorporating discussions around improving socialization in online/hybrid meetings into the draft-ietf-shmoo-online-meetings draft.