Subject: [Mtgvenue] Alissa Cooper's Block on charter-ietf-mtgvenue-00-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:25:14 -0700

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-mtgvenue-00-00: Block

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-mtgvenue/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could have been a no-objection as it always feels a bit odd to
ballot block on the question of external review, but I think there are
some fairly fundamental fixes that should be made to this charter that
would be done more efficiently now than after it goes out to the
community. If people think this is unreasonable, let me know and I will
consider switching.

Issues that I see:

1) I think it's ok to list drafts that may be used as starting points for
the WG's work, but this charter goes too far in its assumption that
draft-baker-iaoc-venue-selection-process will be "the" starting point. I
would soften that language in bullet #2 and re-phrase or delete the first
sentence of the second paragraph accordingly.

2) I think the same is true for the idea that this group will produce
precisely the two documents that are listed. If all options really are on
the table, it's possible that the discussion of deliverable #1 will
result in the conclusion that we do not have a consensus "overall"
policy, or that what is described here as an "overall" policy shouldn't
really take any priority over the rest of the criteria defined in the
other document, so it need not be documented separately. I'm not
advocating any particular outcome, just questioning the wisdom of
constraining the problem space in this way, if people are really to
believe the other statement here that everything is "open for
discussion." (I can also imagine that the criteria and the selection
process end up in separate documents. May be too early to write "two
RFCs" in stone.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

3) I think it would be more accurate to call 1-1-1* the geographic
distribution policy, rather than the "overall" policy.

4) I would think "Asia-Pacific" (if we're referring to the region) or
"Asia" (if we're referring to the continent) would be more accurate than
"Asia/Australia."

5) Personally I do not find the phrase "spread the pain" particularly
useful in this context and would suggest deleting or replacing it (with
"hassle" or something that is more descriptive).

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:11:25 +0300

Thanks Alissa. Agree with your points.

> sentence of the second paragraph accordingly.

Done.

> process end up in separate documents. May be too early to write "two

Yes — I will distribute a new version in a moment. Let me know if it solves this issue.

> distribution policy, rather than the "overall" policy.

OK. However, while the existing policy has been geographic, the future one may not be. Suresh’s draft for instance talks about virtual meetings as one of the exceptions.

I will see how I can reword.

> "Asia/Australia.”

See my response to Brian. I’ve now used “Asia” for the *current policy*.

> "hassle" or something that is more descriptive).

Yes - I took SM’s suggested wording.

Jari