Subject: [Mtgvenue] Call for adoption, draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 10:38:41 -0800

Hi, all:

This is a call for working group adoption of 
draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process, "IAOC Plenary Meeting 
Venue Selection
Process" 
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/).

Please send comments on the suitability of this draft as a basis
for our process deliverable to the mailing list.  This call will
close in two weeks, on July 22 2016.

Many thanks,

Melinda and Jonne

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 15:26:46 -0400

Thanks for this!  I fully support adoption as the basis for the WG
deliverable .  The document isn't perfect, but captures *a lot* of good
details.

Lou

PS Full disclosure, I am speaking as (a biased) co-author and not
representing the IAOC.

On 7/8/2016 2:38 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 16:29:33 -0400

I support WG adoption of the draft.

Cheers,
Andy

On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> Process" (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/
> ).
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 09:50:40 +0100

> deliverable .  The document isn't perfect, but captures *a lot* of good

+1

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:15:00 -0700

I support adopting the document, which I have read.

---

From: Jeffrey Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 15:54:18 -0400

On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 10:38:41AM -0800, Melinda Shore wrote:
> draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process, "IAOC Plenary
> Meeting Venue Selection
> Process" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/).
> 

I support adoption.

The document also exhibits a level of early polish that makes me wonder how
long it should stand before it's placed for WGLC.

-- Jeff

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 16:14:08 -0400

Jeff,

Once it’s been adopted, and assuming the WG also reaches consensus on
draft-sullivan, it may be useful to combine the two rather than keep them
separate.

Cheers,
Andy

---

From: Jim Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 17:33:43 -0400

I support adoption of this document, with the disclosure that I'm a contributing author. 

- Jim

> On Jul 10, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Andrew G. Malis <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Once it’s been adopted, and assuming the WG also reaches consensus on draft-sullivan, it may be useful to combine the two rather than keep them separate.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andy
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 14:53:26 -0700

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 11:38 AM, Melinda Shore <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, all:
> 
> This is a call for working group adoption of draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process, "IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection

I sent a fairly substantial set of comments about this draft to the list three weeks ago [1], and I’ve seen no response to them. For me it would be useful to know if the authors and WG concur with any of those or have thoughts about how to make the associated edits as a way to inform the decision about WG adoption of this draft.

While I think this draft provides useful transparency and probably fulfills the charter provision to produce a "specification that describes the detailed meeting venue selection
process and criteria,” on its own I don’t think it provides "clear guidance to meeting selections” or is "implementable in our operating environment.” That is part of the reason why Andrew and I wrote our draft. It might be the case that through further discussion we find that there is no rough consensus about what the clear guidance should be, but I think in adopting this draft it would be important to understand whether folks believe it is the document that is providing clear guidance, or whether that is to be left as a further exercise.

Thanks,
Alissa

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00193.html <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mtgvenue/current/msg00193.html>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 15:20:36 +0200

> draft-sullivan, it may be useful to combine the two rather than keep 

So, I actually think this would be a mistake, and I think that causes me 
to *object* to adopting draft-baker, and suggest that we adopt 
draft-sullivan instead. Let me explain:

I think that while draft-baker catalogs the decision criteria 
reasonably, I think as a basis for a document to address the second 
deliverable, it has too *much* information. The nice thing about 
draft-sullivan is that it sticks to hard principles we can hand to the 
IAOC with a bit of the mush they might need to take into consideration, 
rather than starting with the mush. I think it would serve us better to 
keep draft-baker as internal reference for the WG, but adopt 
draft-sullivan as the WG document.

(FWIW: This is not a comment on the editor or the contributors. Not that 
it's my choice, but if one or more of them is still willing to be 
editor, that's fine with me. I'm only talking about the structure of the 
current documents and which would serve well as a starting point for the 
WG.)

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:40:07 +0200

On 7/19/2016 3:20 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> to /object/ to adopting draft-baker, and suggest that we adopt
> deliverable, it has too /much/ information. The nice thing about

I think that view misses what is essential to this effort.

A core set of guiding (and gosh, even prioritized) goals/non-goals is 
good and necessary, but it is very, very far from sufficient.

I'm biased as a contributor to the baker draft, but nonetheless will 
note that it has quite a bit of necessary procedural information.

The implication of your recommendation is that adopting a draft means 
that there must be a one-to-one correspondence between adopted documents 
and published document.

Since there doesn't, and since you want to keep baker as a reference, 
and since I believe its substance is in fact necessary to the wg's 
output,  that effectively means you (and I) want the wg to adopt it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 16:50:41 +0200

> note that it has quite a bit of necessary procedural information.

I agree that some of the procedural information is necessary, but I 
believe not all of it, and I believe the form of some of the information 
is not ideal for building upon to get the document I'd like to see out 
of the WG. But the core issue might be what you say next:

> that there must be a one-to-one correspondence between adopted 
> documents and published document.
>

It was not my working assumption that there be a 1::1 correspondence 
between adopted documents and published documents in general. However, I 
did understand that the idea of adopting *this* document was to make it 
the starting working draft for our deliverable. If adopting *only* means 
that it will be a document under consideration and we can use it for 
reference in our work, I don't have any objection to that. But if 
adopting the draft means that this text will be the starting point for 
our deliverable and I'm going to be arguing to take stuff out of it (as 
against draft-sullivan, where the job is adding the correct and minimal 
amount of text to it), then I do object to adoption. So it really 
depends on what our plan for the document is.

pr

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:04:47 +0200

On 7/19/2016 4:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> However, I did understand that the idea of adopting /this/ document was
> to make it the starting working draft for our deliverable. If adopting
> /only/ means that it will be a document under consideration and we can
> use it for reference in our work, I don't have any objection to that.
> But if adopting the draft means that this text will be the starting
> point for our deliverable and I'm going to be arguing to take stuff out
> of it (as against draft-sullivan, where the job is adding the correct
> and minimal amount of text to it), then I do object to adoption. So it
> really depends on what our plan for the document is.

Sometimes, a wg adoption of a document comes after a careful negotiation 
with its authors and creates various terms and conditions.  Absent such 
a negotiation -- and the current circumstance Acarries no expectation of 
such  negotiation -- then the wg can adopt the doc and do whatever the 
f' it feels like with it.  Or, at least, that's what I've always 
understood, which happens to matchmy reading of RFC 7221.

My meta-reaction to the small spate of additional (and interesting) 
drafts for the wg is that we need to step back and think hard about 
document organization:  Purpose of doc(s), number and scope, and 
internal structure.  Then populate it/them, such as drawing from the 
proffered drafts.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 10:05:42 -0500

I agree with Pete. What I really liked about
 draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00  is it took the problem up a few
levels.  If we can't agree on the basic objectives for selecting meeting
venues, then I can't possibly see the value in all the details in the other
documents.

Regards,
Mary.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I think that while draft-baker catalogs the decision criteria reasonably,
> I think as a basis for a document to address the second deliverable, it has
> too *much* information. The nice thing about draft-sullivan is that it
> sticks to hard principles we can hand to the IAOC with a bit of the mush
> they might need to take into consideration, rather than starting with the
> mush. I think it would serve us better to keep draft-baker as internal
> reference for the WG, but adopt draft-sullivan as the WG document.
>
> it's my choice, but if one or more of them is still willing to be editor,
> that's fine with me. I'm only talking about the structure of the current
> documents and which would serve well as a starting point for the WG.)
>
> pr
> --
> Pete Resnick http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 21:56:23 +1200

> venues, then I can't possibly see the value in all the details in the other

I tend to agree *but* I would like the detailed approach described in draft-baker
to be public information, assuming that it describes the approach that the
meetings committee and the IAOC itself follow. That is important for transparency
and community oversight. Whether it is engraved in stone as an RFC or simply
maintained as part of the IAOC's public materials is a separate question.

(There is a reason that the IETF Operational Notes series was invented a few
years ago; it fizzled technically but the need remains to openly document
as many procedures as possible.)

   Brian