Subject: [Mtgvenue] Session minutes

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:41:18 -0800

Session minutes from IETF 96 have been posted:
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-mtgvenue

I've pulled out the main items needing follow-up - please
post any corrections or additions to the mailing list.

Many, many thanks to Barry Leiba for his detailed notes.

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 08:43:44 +1200

> https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-mtgvenue

Since I couldn't get to the meeting due to a clash, I'll chime in
re draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy:

> 2. Do we need more precise definitions of geo regions?
...
> Jari: Q2, I think we don't need a precise definition.

I disagree. I don't think that "Europe" and "Asia" are self-defining.
("North America" is, pretty much, modulo details like Hawaii.)

Personally I like the idea of using the RIR de facto definition
of regions, because
a) They are definitions that work for *practical* reasons in our community.
b) The RIRs are a good source of knowledge about potential sponsors, hotels and
venues in their regions.
c) It leaves a natural growth path if we one day want to advance from 1+1+1
towards 1+1+1+1+1, or to distributed plenaries, or whatever comes next.

(In any case 1+1+1 is not a sacred cow; it's a way of helping to make the
meetings generally successful while balancing travel costs and inconvenience
in a fair way. That balance can change in the future.)

On a related question in the draft:

> Do we need to predefine success criteria for the wildcard meetings?

IMHO, no. They are wild cards, so by definition don't fit any pattern.
We'll know if they fail.

    Brian