Subject: [Mtgvenue] Comment on Community Consultation section of draft

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:43:37 -0500

Hi,

    In today's meetings committee call a question came up on how
Community Consultation should actually work.  We came up with a straw
man proposal that impacts the draft.   The proposal is as follows:

OLD

>    Phase 2:  Community Consultation
>       The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
>       holding a successful meeting in the target cities.  Community
>       responses are reviewed and concerns investigated.  The IAOC shall
>       maintain a public web page that lists all target cities, when
>       community input was solicited, and summarized review results.
>       Once review results are published the IAOC provides a list of
>       vetted cities to the Meetings Committee to pursue as potential
>       meeting locations.
New:

      Phase 2:  Community Consultation
      A. The IAOC asks the community whether there are any barriers to
           holding a successful meeting in the target cities. 

      B. Community  responses are reviewed and concerns investigated
           by the Meetings Committee.

       C. The  Meetings Committee recommends to the IAOC that the cities
           be added to the approved/disapproved list

        D. The IAOC designates each city as approved or disapproved by the
             community

        E. Results are published on a public web page.
            The page will include for each city:
                Date of consultation email
                Result (approved|disapproved)
                URL of consultation email (i.e., start of  discussion
thread)

Does this work for everyone?  (i.e., should be included in next rev of
draft...)

Thanks,
Lou

PS Blame me for any errors/bad ideas, not the committee

---

From: Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:06:08 -0800

Hi Lou and everyone,

I have put together a rough starting point for the Community Input page based on the email below and the conversation during the meetings committee call this morning. This page is not currently linked from anywhere. I’m happy to make adjustments as necessary, just let me know what should be changed.

https://iaoc.ietf.org/meeting-location-input.html

Thanks!

Stephanie McCammon
IETF Senior Project Manager
5177 Brandin Court
Fremont, CA 94538
T: +1.510.492.4081
F: +1.510.492.4001

Association Management Solutions (AMS)
Forum Management, Meeting, and Event Planning
www.amsl.com

On Nov 7, 2016, at 08:43 , Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

OLD

New:

Thanks,
Lou

PS Blame me for any errors/bad ideas, not the committee
_______________________________________________
Iaoc-mtgs mailing list
[email-masked]
https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/iaoc-mtgs

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:11:40 -0500

Hi Stephanie,

    This looks great.  Two minor comments:

- Perhaps list country as well as city

- I like really like the pointer to the venue-selection email.  It would
be good to also add a link to the archive:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/venue-selection/

Thank you!
Lou

---

From: Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:55:35 -0800

Thanks Lou! I’ve added the countries (note that I left out 'Special Administrative Region of China' for Hong Kong and Macau, but I can add it if it’s preferred) as well as a link to the archive at the bottom.

Thanks,

Stephanie McCammon

On Nov 7, 2016, at 12:11 , Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Stephanie,

Thank you!
Lou

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:33:10 -0800

Stephanie,

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 12:55 PM, Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 

For reasons like this, I think it’s best to not include the Country.

Bob

> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 16:40:53 -0500

Stephanie,

I rescind my suggestion to add country.

Sigh and thanks.

Lou

On November 7, 2016 4:33:43 PM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> Thanks Lou! I’ve added the countries (note that I left out 'Special 
>> Administrative Region of China' for Hong Kong and Macau, but I can add it 
>> if it’s preferred) as well as a link to the archive at the bottom.
>
>>> I have put together a rough starting point for the Community Input page 
>>> based on the email below and the conversation during the meetings committee 
>>> call this morning. This page is not currently linked from anywhere. I’m 
>>> happy to make adjustments as necessary, just let me know what should be 
>>> changed.
>>>

---

From: Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 13:42:59 -0800

Hi all,

The countries have been removed.

Thanks!

Stephanie McCammon

On Nov 7, 2016, at 13:40 , Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:

Stephanie,

Sigh and thanks.

Lou

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 15:27:04 +1300

> For reasons like this, I think it’s best to not include the Country.

You have to. Is that Paris, Texas in Stephanie's list? Which Cambridge or
London would we mean?

HK and Macau aren't disputed. One or two other possiblities might be, but that's
why we use the ISO codes in the IETF registration system.

   Brian

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 19:20:16 -0800 (PST)

> why we use the ISO codes in the IETF registration system.

I don't think we will ever find ourselves in a situation where there 
is actual confusion about what "country" (APNIC calls them 
"economies") that is being discussed. For "London" we would have the
context of "European locations under consideration" and with that
context "London" is not where Joe Abley lives :-)

Using the ISO codes would of course work just fine.

Ole

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 19:37:15 -0800

> is actual confusion about what "country" (APNIC calls them

And yet, Paris Texas is such a nice place, but now we'll never go there 
because people will always assume we mean that larger, gaudier place...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Ray Pelletier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:39:24 +0900

Stephanie

Please add the cities for the 3 years for which comment was also solicited.
I believe that was IETF 86 onward.

Thanks
Ray

> On Nov 8, 2016, at 6:42 AM, Stephanie McCammon <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all,
>