Subject: [Mtgvenue] Section 3.2 of draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:14:13 -0700

Hello,

Section 3.2 discusses about maximal attendance and argues that 'a 
larger meeting in which key contributors could not make it is not a 
better meeting; neither is one with a lot of "tourists"'.  That 
Section also lists revenue from IETF meeting fees as a non-objective.

During the last WG session there was a comment from the IETF 
Administrative Director about the increase in local attendance at 
IETF 95 and IETF 96.  Local attendance at IETF 95 was approximately 
10% of total attendance [1].  I assume that some of those local 
attendees do participate in some form even though they are not 
presenting any draft given that some working groups take a "hum".  I 
would not describe any attendee as a "tourist" given that his/her 
company is paying for him/her to attend the meeting.

Are key contributors in the draft IAB/IESG/IAOC members and WG 
Chairs?  Assuming that the IAOC determines whether key contributors 
are interested in attending a meeting at a future venue through a 
survey, is a similar mechanism being recommended for the IETF policy 
about venue selection?

I went to read draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03 
again to see how the two drafts fit together.  According to Section 
3.1, the IETF meets "to facilitate attendee participation in multiple 
topics and to enable cross-pollination of ideas and 
technology".  There is text in Section 3.1 about one of the aims for 
"where we meet": "to enhance inclusiveness and new 
contributions".  Another aim (Section 3.2) is for: "generating funds 
to support IETF operations in support of standards 
development".  Some of the currently stated aims/objectives are not 
aligned in the different drafts.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. There is one RFC Author and one WG co-Chair residing in the country.