Subject: [Mtgvenue] (offlist) Final 'appeal' text and possible alternate placement

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:24:49 -0800

Folks,

G'day.

Two items...

1. Inclusiveness

 From the latest notes concerning text in:

 > 2.  Venue Selection Objectives
 >
 > 2.1.  Core Values
...
 >    Inclusiveness:

There appear to be /no changes/ required.

2. Concerning appeals/feedback:

 From the latest exchange I started to work on the precise text to tweak 
and use at the end of Section 1.2 and would propose:

      While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it 
remains the responsibility of the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  Any 
appeals are subject to the provisions of Section 3.5 [RFC4071]. 
Individuals also can raise their concerns by providing input to the 
various IAOC member selection processes by the NOMCOM, IAB and IESG, as 
appropriate. [RFC4071]

However, considering the substance of the text, I think it's placement 
in Section 1.2 Requirements Language is quite odd.  The new text is 
about appeals and feedback, not requirements.  That is, it's more about 
actors than meeting criteria.

Looking over the document, I think it makes more sense to put the text 
(with some obvious editorial tweaks to make it fit) at the end of:

      Section 4.7.  IAOC Meeting Committee

Placement there would produce:

> 4.4.  IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
>
>    The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has the
>    responsibility to oversee and select IETF meeting venues.  It
>    instructs the IAD to work with the Internet Society to write the
>    relevant contracts.  It approves the IETF meetings calendar.  In
>    cooperation with the IAD, the IAOC takes necessary actions to ensure
>    that it is aware of participant concerns about particular venues as
>    early in the process as is feasible.

      While the meeting selection process is directed by the 
requirements language of [Section 1.2], it remains the responsibility of 
the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  Any appeals are subject to the 
provisions of Section 3.5 [RFC4071]. Individuals also can raise their 
concerns by providing input to the various IAOC member selection 
processes by the NOMCOM, IAB and IESG, as appropriate. [RFC4071]

Is this acceptable to folk?

d/

Link to current draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04#section-4

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:46:34 -0900

> There appear to be /no changes/ required.

While it's clear we really need to push ahead it's also
not at all clear that no changes are required.  For one thing,
Andrew has already stated that he's not sure, and for another
the changing situation in the US has both raised the
visibility of this work and provides another, er, "use case"
to run through this process as a gedankenexperiment.  Let's give
people until Tuesday to respond and close it out then.

Melinda