Subject: [Mtgvenue] comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:10:39 +0000

Thanks for developing this document, I'm sure it'll help us
avoid some repeated discussions when done.

My apologies for not having participated until now but please
find a bunch of comments below.

Please feel free to ignore any that have already been
discussed - I only had time for a quick peek at the archive.

Cheers,
S.

- general: I think there's a statement missing, viz: "The
IETF's meeting venue selection process, as with all IETF
processes, should be as open as possible." Could we add
that or similar to the intro?

- 1.2, mandatory: Do we somewhere address the temporal
aspect of this where a venue used to be (un)acceptable but
that changes? I'm not clear how such changes on the ground
impact on the process described in section 5. (Nor do I
have a good suggestion to offer sorry;-)

- 1.2, important: While I get the good intention here, I
don't know how I would evaluate this, were I ever on the
IAOC. Is that just me? Despite it being hard to do, I
suspect 2119 terms might work better here, with the
definition of SHOULD (as always) being "MUST except when
<X>" for some X that ought be documenntable at the time of
a meeting venue decision. The meat of that change would I
think be that, "Important"/SHOULD requirements would be
treated as Mandatory/MUST requirements in all cases except
when there is a specific stated (or can-be-stated) reason.

- 1.2, inclusiveness, bullet 1: as has become apparent this
week, "entry" is not the only barrier to consider.  We need
somehow to consider "going home" as well and maybe even
(though with lower probability) issues that might arise
in-transit, if route selections are v. limited. That might
be better done in it's own sub-section, not sure.

- 1.2, "unfiltered" - do we need to define that a little
better? I'd suggest we define it as whatever at the time
constitutes IETF consensus on the level of access that is
considered acceptable for typical home/office use for any
non-negligibly-sized subset of IETF participants. It may be
worth noting that a BCP could be a good way to document
that consensus, but is not needed for this document. Such a
BCP would be a moving target, but it's correct that it
ought be.  (Same term occurs in 3.3 btw)

- 2.2, politics: I'd argue that we ought add to the end of
this "... except where such issues significantly impinge on
the ability of IETF participants to work effectively."

- section 3, 2nd para: ought we require the IAOC to be able
to publicly justify its reasoning after it has made a venue
selection decision? I'd like that that be possible and that
IAOC members work on that basis, but there's a risk that
some of us might abuse such a requirement. So I'm not sure
what's right here.

- really a nit, but best stated here: it'd be better if
the rows in the tables had a unique number, to make it
easier to discuss 'em now and later (when folks talk about
why criterion-foo is/isn't met).

- 3.1, consultation: There's a missing temporal aspect here
and elsewhere. I think in this case what's meant to be
mandatory is that the community has been consulted
sufficiently far ahead that changes are still possible.
But we also need to recognise that situations may change,
and even close to a meeting so that there's no real
alternative but to stick with the now-bad plan. (Or to not
meet at all.)

- 3.1, host/sponsors: I don't think this ought be mandatory
as we may move from a sposor-related-to-venue model to some
other ways in which sponsors help out.  It might be better
to cast this as a negative, i.e. to say that it is
mandatory to ensure that a venue is not sponsor-unfriendly
to a significant degree and I'd also s/mandatory/important/

- 3.2, "within the norms of business travel": I don't like
that characterisation - IETF participation might in future
not live up to that budget. Ought we say "acceptable to IETF
participants in general" maybe.

- 3.2, "net cash positive": a question wrt "allow the
meeting to be" - does that mean "has to be" or "could be"?

- 3.2: I don't get the distinction with "wheelchair" being
mandatory and "accessible to people with disabilities"
being only important. That seems like a contradiction to
me. (Same in 3.4) Can you explain?

- 3.5, "health/religion related diets": I think this ought
only be important and not mandatory. I fully understand why
those affected would disagree but IMO promoting this to
mandatory would be paying too much attention to reasonable
people who are noisier than other reasonable people.

- section 4: I think this ought be deleted. There is no need
for tutorial material and what's here could be invalidated
by a re-org of IASA, which has been mooted for this year.
Sections 4.6 and 4.7 are the worst in that respect, in that
they could be a barrier to some changes in IASA that the
IETF may or may not wish to explore.

- section 5: this overall seems too prescriptive to me.  Do
we really think we'll need to follow this process *exactly*
in say 2027? I'd say making this all less prescriptive
would be better.

- 5.3 & 5.5: the links aren't a good idea (and are access
controlled which is unacceptable if not fixed).

nits

- abstract: to me, "IETF plenary" means Wednesday night fun
(currently:-) and not the full week. Suggest rewording
that.

- section 1: does this really describe thought processes?
I doubt it. Perhaps you mean reasoning?

- 1.2, desired: I'm not clear that this definition does not
overlap with "Important"

- 1.2, why do we meet: I think it'd be worth stating that
we also meet so that in-person interaction smoothes later
virtual interactions. There is agenda-independent (and
dinner-independent:-) value in meeting f2f at least
sometimes, if not regularly. That point could be noted
below under "Focus" but would be better in the "Why do we
meet" headline bit I think.

- 1.2: " Within reason, budget should not be a barrier to
accommodation." Huh? I don't get what's meant there, and it
could be ambiguous.  Maybe better deleted as the para as a
whole seems to state the concept well enough?

- 2.2, tourism: I think we ought recognise that people do
work better and do better work when happy. And people are
happier in some venues than others, often for the same
reasons that cause tourists to like a particular venue.
I'd still leave tourism in this section but I'd argue to
qualify it along the above lines - while we don't want to
travel for tourist reasons, we equally do not need to avoid
nice locations and seek out the horrendous:-)

- section 3: I'm not sure that "IETF hotel" and SSIDs are
that closely related.

- 3.2: I'm not sure the IETF is an "internaltion
organisation" and I'd prefer we not call ourselves that.

- 5.1: I don't get why we need to be as prescriptive as
"four years out.."

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:26:21 +1300

I will read Stephen's review and respond on some more substantial
issues later, but for now:

On 30/01/2017 17:10, Stephen Farrell wrote:
...

The actual text is:

>> 3.2.  Basic Venue Criteria
>> 
>> The IETF operates as an international organisational and adjusts to
>> local requirements.

which is broken anyway, but this is *not* a nit. An "international
organisation" is a well known phrase that refers to organisations
created by international treaties: things like the UN, or CERN.
That is a claim that, thank goodness, we cannot make.

Try:

The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.

    Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 21:22:27 -0800

> The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.

The language change seems benign change, although not really necessary. 
Yes, I see what you are asserting about the term "international 
organization" but that does not match the first definition I found online:

      "An international organization is an organization with an 
international membership, scope, or presence."

which is the opening to the Wikipedia entry for the term, and cites "The 
Penguin Dictionary of International Relations" as its source. That 
matches the IETF nicely, IMO.

However, the Encyclopædia Britannica is more in line with the 
interpretation you suggest.

So as I said, the change you suggest is benign and does seem less likely 
to invite this particular terminology debate.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:17:57 +0100

Hi Stephen,

> that or similar to the intro?

What do you practically have in mind?  One could go too far with regard
to certain aspects of contract negotiations.  What's possible and what's
advisable?

> when there is a specific stated (or can-be-stated) reason.

We need to disentangle the two issues you are raising here.  One is how
to evaluate tradeoffs and the other is the "normative" language.  Let's
start with the 2nd first, because I think it's easier to address.  The
good about 2119 language is that we all know what it means.  The bad is
that in this case, it doesn't really apply.  In particular, MUST's use
is constrained in an inapplicable way in Section 6 of RFC 2119.  In
addition,  the authors have made clear "important" may involve a
tradeoff.  From a transparency perspective, that should be made clear.

As to how you evaluate what to trade off, this is where your judgment
comes in.  Which of these "important" things is more important at a
given moment?  That's why you'd get the big bucks ;-)

> be better done in it's own sub-section, not sure.

I think in the instant circumstances, what you're suggesting would be
unworkable for three  reasons.  First, we can only control where the
conference is, and not where people come from (and therefore would be
returning to).  Second, probably we don't want to meet in countries that
are causing such strife, but, third, if we attempted to hold all
conferences in venues where exiting were not a problem, probably
entering would be.

> ought be.  (Same term occurs in 3.3 btw)
Got text?
> the ability of IETF participants to work effectively."

I thought that was implicit, but I'm personally okay with this addition.
> some of us might abuse such a requirement. So I'm not sure

Did that not happen in BA and thereafter?

> why criterion-foo is/isn't met).

My nit is slightly different.  I'd suggest the list be ordered from
mandatory downward.
> alternative but to stick with the now-bad plan. (Or to not

We have to be rather careful about this, lest the organization take big
financial hit.  What do you have in mind?

> participants in general" maybe.

Didn't we just get away from having to evaluate what that means?

> me. (Same in 3.4) Can you explain?

Funnily enough I wondered about the distinction as well, even what it
meant.  And so I went and asked a well known accessibility expert
(Andrea Saks) about this.  She pointed out that this would have to do
with whether elevators have braille, whether there are bedrooms are set
up for deaf people (doorbell lights, and such).  I'm going to hazard a
guess that many venues outside the US are in some way partial compliance
with what we Americans would call the ADA.  I'm guessing that's what
this is about.  A good # of UN buildings (including the ITU) have some
limitations along these lines, for instance.

> people who are noisier than other reasonable people.

Keep in mind the text of the full requirement (which I'll note with
tables in text is hard to cut and paste):

   A range of attendee's health-related and religion- 
   related dietary requirements can be satisfied with
   robust and flexible onsite service or through access
   to an adequate grocery.

And so the text doesn't REQUIRE on prem accommodation, but something
nearby.  Also note that it specifies "a range".  That is subject to
judgment.

> IETF may or may not wish to explore.

I think I agree.  If this updates or clarifies those roles, we should be
clear on how it does so, and we should note that with "Updates:".
> in say 2027? I'd say making this all less prescriptive

Yes, I like the idea of it being DEscriptive.

> nice locations and seek out the horrendous:-)

require_once "MinneapolisDiscussion.php";

> organisation" and I'd prefer we not call ourselves that.

There are words we can probably pull from our IANA response or from the
Tao as to how we describe ourselves.  I agree that we have to be careful
about how we characterize ourselves here, and it's perhaps a little more
than a nit.
> - 5.1: I don't get why we need to be as prescriptive as

Regards,

Eliot

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:20:46 +0100

Sorry- small edit error.

> conferences in venues where exiting were not a problem, probably

s/where exiting/where ONLY exiting/

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:11:15 +0000

> The IETF operates internationally and adjusts to local requirements.

I think that's better yes,

Ta,
S.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:32:13 -0500

Stephen,

    Just focusing in on comments to section 5 (as I suspect the other
comments will receive sufficient attention by others):

> in say 2027? I'd say making this all less prescriptive

I disagree -- Given the importance, visibility, impact, divisiveness,
etc of venue selection I think exactly this level of detail needs to be
agreed to by the community.  I do see your point that this section is
likely to need to be revisited more frequently than the rest of the
document and would support publishing it in its own document.  In fact
this section has been pretty stable and is probably ready for LC so such
a document could be rapidly split out and published.

> controlled which is unacceptable if not fixed).

Agreed this material can either be incorporated as an appendix.  Given
the current evolving situation the flow chart on contingency planning is
good info to have available to the community...

Lou

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:40:08 +0000

Hiya,

On 30/01/17 09:17, Eliot Lear wrote:
> What do you practically have in mind? 

What I said above - adding a sentence like the above to e.g.
the intro.

> One could go too far with regard

I didn't ask to go too far though, I suggested "as open as
possible."

My reason for suggesting this is that relative lack of
openness has been a cause of IAOC hiccups in the past,
including wrt venue selection, so while it'd not be
right to try fully define here how the IAOC ought in
future be open, (hopefully the IASA2.0 activity will
tackle that), I do think it'd be useful to have that
reminder here. And as I think the community and IAOC
seem to have accepted that more openness here would be
good, acking that in text seems like a good plan to
me.

> given moment?  That's why you'd get the big bucks ;-)

I fully accept that tradeoffs will be required and that judgement
wrt those is needed. Saying so would be a good improvement if it's
not there already.

However, I'm still unclear about how one would evaluate what
"important" means. (But if the rest of the wg are fine with
this, then ignoring my doubts is probably right.)

>> - 1.2, 

oops, it's in 2.1

>> inclusiveness, bullet 1: as has become apparent this

It's a fair point that some of this is not related to
venue selection, though I do think route availability
ought be in scope - say for example we decided to not
meet in the US for a while, then that could (if transit
becomes problematic) presumably also rule out some .ca
venues for which travel via the US is more or less
required for many non-US participants.

>> ought be.  (Same term occurs in 3.3 btw)

"Not that 'unfiltered' here is meant to mean whatever it
is that IETF participants at the time of a meeting would
consider it to mean - as technology develops our concepts
relating to such technical requirements will change."

> Did that not happen in BA and thereafter?

Not sure what "that" you mean, nor whether you're
(dis)agreeing with me;-)

> My nit is slightly different.  I'd suggest the list be ordered from

I'm fine that the order could be fixed anytime betweeen now
and auth-48.

> financial hit.  What do you have in mind?

If the IAOC ask the community about a venue N years ahead
of time, with a view to signing a contract M years ahead
of time, that venue's acceptability can change in between.
I think we need to recognise that aspect of a lot of the
criteria, and also say something about this in section 5,
e.g. maybe at the top of section 5 add something like
"The evaluation of the criteria set out in section 3 can
change over time for any venue. Clearly, the closer it
gets to a planned meeting date, the harder it is to make
changes, but the IAOC should be willing to consider
re-evaluating the criteria and their overall conclusions
about venues even quite close to the meeting date. It
is possible, and regrettable, that that causes us to have
to meet in a venue that would not meet our evaluation at
the time of the meeting. Avoiding that is a goal, but may
not always be possible, given the cost issues involved
in late changes."

> Didn't we just get away from having to evaluate what that means?

Not sure what you mean. My point is that for some IETF
participants (some of the time;-) "business travel" means the
front of the plane and no problems with expensive hotels.
Others are more constrained. I'd prefer we ground the acceptable
costs on the "average" meeting-attending IETFers ability to pay.

> limitations along these lines, for instance.

You may be right, but given it's confusing to both of us, that
suggests a re-write is needed I think, but I also think that all
criteria related to disability logically need to be at the same
level, whether that's mandatory or important.

> nearby.  Also note that it specifies "a range".  That is subject to

I don't disagree with you but still conclude that making this
"mandatory" is us listening a little too much to some of our
loudest voices. (Again, I think those are reasonable voices.)
I am also uncomfortable with us having personal choices (e.g.
dietary or religious) impose mandatory criteria. (I figure
that medical dietary constraints are not the same as personal
choices.) Given the range of personal choices that people
can make that would for those people but just as important
as religion or dietary preferences, I think it'd be an error
to make this mandatory.

> require_once "MinneapolisDiscussion.php";

Heh. As it happens I think MSP was an ok place to meet
given all the tradeoffs. So two points:

- if someone does have a succinct description of those
repeated discussions, including that in an appendix might
save us from having to do it again
- for me the point remains that while I agree with the
conclusion that tourism is a non-goal, I do think we ought
also say that IETF participants do sometimes prefer nicer
places over crappier (to visit) places and happier people
might in fact do better work.

Cheers,
S.

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:45:31 +0000

Hiya,

> a document could be rapidly split out and published.

So how about emphasising more that this section is a guideline
that's expected to evolve, that what's listed here is the
current practice (assuming it is) and that the IAOC may change
this but must publish their changes and follow community
consensus on such changes (as evaluated by the IESG)? To be
clear, I mean adding such text to the start of section 5,
before 5.1.

> good info to have available to the community...

So I still get a 401 when I click those links - has the material
been published somewhere else that the WG could see? If not, I
think that has to happen before one could think about WGLC.

Cheer,
S.

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:55:57 -0500

Stephen,

> clear, I mean adding such text to the start of section 5,

WFM.

> been published somewhere else that the WG could see? 
no - that's what I was agree too -- and saying it should be incorporated
within an appendix of the document.

> If not, I

I think we're on the same page here, i.e. links (accessible or
otherwise) are a bad idea...

Lou

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:14:07 +0100

Hi Stephen,

> good, acking that in text seems like a good plan to

I suggest, then, a one word change:

OLD:

The IETF's meeting venue selection process, as with all IETF
processes, should be as open as possible.

NEW:

The IETF's meeting venue selection process, as with all IETF
processes, should be as open as practicable.

I realize it's a nit.  That's for the literal among us.

<snip>
> "[Note] that 'unfiltered' here is meant to mean whatever it

I like the concept.  I think it needs just a bit of elaboration so that
potential hosts understand what is meant:

Note that "unfiltered" in this context is meant to allow for all
manner of forms of communications, as the IETF often makes first use
of its own technologies at our meetings.  In addition, to facilitate
the business of the IETF it is also necessary for participants to
hold confidential discussions with their businesses, customers, and
partners.

At the same time, IETF participants are expected to make use of the
network in a manner consistent with local laws and customs.

> Not sure what "that" you mean, nor whether you're

What I meant is that after the Singapore announcement in BA there was an
uproar that prompted an introspective review on the part of the IAOC. 
It seems to me that, apart from personnel,  all the  I* groups should be
prepared to defend ALL of their decisions (not just this one).  That
doesn't necessarily mean that the IAOC should have to preemptively lay
out their logic for a given venue.  And in some cases, the answers will
begin with, “In our judgment...” at which point one either accepts that
or takes a walk to the NOMCOM...

> not always be possible, given the cost issues involved

Just a question: if a meeting were to be canceled today, say due to a
natural catastrophe, who would make that call?

> costs on the "average" meeting-attending IETFers ability to pay.

I get it.  Just want to avoid consensus calls on what people think is
reasonable.  Maybe spelling out what is meant by "norms of business
travel" is best...

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:07:32 +0000

Hiya,,

> processes, should be as open as practicable.

That'd be fine.

> hold confidential discussions with their businesses, customers, and

I like the above. I'd add though that it's a moving target as well,
e.g. via "As Internet technologies evolve, so do the technical
requirements for the IETF meeting network."

> network in a manner consistent with local laws and customs.

Did you mean to include that in the draft? If so, I'd be
against. I think the situation's a bit more subtle than
can be captured here. If one assumes that we might again
meet in .cn then I would not want the above para quoted
at the NOC folks as the reason why we have to put up with
the GFW. Capturing the subtly involved in handling that
in this draft would be too hard I think.

> or takes a walk to the NOMCOM...

Ah grand. Fully agree.

> natural catastrophe, who would make that call?

My guess is a combination of IESG/IAOC with help from
folks involved in meeting arrangements (hosts, locals,
ams, NOC).

Ultimately, I'd say it'd be the IESG's responsibility but
that any sane IESG would want the IAOC to agree with them
or to have asked that the IESG make the call. Equally
though if a sane IAOC came to the IESG and said "we really
need to cancel" I can't see it'd be likely an IESG would
disagree, though there'd be a fairly interesting Q&A I'm
sure.

All that said, I've not gone looking anywhere to check
so the above could be wrong. Maybe the contingency plan
behind those URLs has answers?

> reasonable.  Maybe spelling out what is meant by "norms of business

I'd avoid the phrase "business travel" entirely. While IETF
travel is business for almost all of us, that phrase has
connotations of more comfort than some of us can afford, at
least for me when I play the poor-mouth:-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:24:44 -0800

> level, whether that's mandatory or important.

Is it acceptable to have a venue that requires everyone to climb a lot 
of stairs?  The answer needs to be no.

Is it acceptable to have a venue that does not have braille for its 
elevator buttons?  While it is appealing to say no, it almost certainly 
isn't practical.  Given international variability, it is likely to 
exclude even more places.

Repeat this for the very large range of very detailed, technical 
requirements that occur in any serious accessibility standard, and we 
will rapidly eliminate all but a very tiny set of venues.

'Wheelchair access' benefits far more than folk in wheelchair.  It aids 
everyone with mobility issues.  There is a universality to this benefit 
that is not matched by the many other details concerning accessibility.

That's why there two different entries in the draft, with different 
requirements levels.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:34:31 -0800

On 1/30/2017 4:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> consensus on such changes (as evaluated by the IESG)?

Stephen,

A number of your suggestions show this kind of basis:  Things might 
change and we should say something about that.

In specification-writing terms, this has no utility.

There is nothing that we can /do/ with such text.  It is, therefore, 
cruft.  We need to mitigate against cruft that makes the writer feel 
better (and maybe even the reader) but has no actual utility.

The issue is not that such text is wrong but that it has no effect. 
Everything can change.  Most things will.  Eventually.  Adding generic 
text about this universal truth is entertainment, not specification.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:00 -0800

> My nit is slightly different.  I'd suggest the list be ordered from

Why?  First, there are very few entries that aren't mandatory.  Second, 
priority ordering will have no effect.

Priority ordering presumes that the decision process will carefully 
attend to the relative priorities.  That is actually a very difficult 
cognitive task to perform accurately and reliably, and especially so for 
a group rather than an individual.

Venue selection decision-making is not nearly as mechanical as 
priority-ordering requires. Nor can it be.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:47:00 -0800

> least for me when I play the poor-mouth:-)

The draft has details carefully designed to cover those with lesser 
budgets.

The purpose of the phrase "business travel" is to give a generic sense 
of the style and expense of choices made for the mainstream IETF 
participant.  The meeting hotel is the obvious example.

"business travel" is not a precise technical term, but it is meant to 
invoke a basic tone or style.  (For reference, most businesses do not 
pay for business class airfare.)

The mainstream IETF venue choices are not 'budget'.  Nor are they '5 
star".  'Business travel' therefore gives a basic sense of the target 
quality and cost that is sought.

Again, we also have text that carefully covers requirements below that 
category.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:57:47 +0000

Hiya,

> text about this universal truth is entertainment, not specification.

Hmm, that's not very well phrased, from this reader's
perspective. (It reads as fairly condescending to me.)

In any case, I disagree about section 5 - my suggestion has
the substantive statement that the IAOC would publish the
ways in which they're diverging from the text there and that
the community get to say what they/we think of that. You
may consider that solely a form of entertainment, I do not.

Absent such a statement I think we would still need some
way to ensure that section 5's text doesn't turn into another
of those things that we say but no longer do after some time
has elapsed.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:00:29 +0000

The business travel and wheelchair/accessible issues are
fairly minor for me. I've said what I think. If others
find the text ok, I won't go on about it. If others
agree with me, I'm sure they'll chime in as they can.

S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:14:58 -0800

On 1/30/2017 7:57 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> that's expected to evolve,
...
...
> may consider that solely a form of entertainment, I do not.

Having the IAOC document how a particular venue selection has diverged 
from the existing specification is quite different from a suggestion 
that the specification contain language noting that things might change 
(at some unknown point in the future and in some unknown ways.)

My comment was about the several points in your original note that were 
of the latter type.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:16:50 +0100

On 1/30/17 4:40 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Why?  First, there are very few entries that aren't mandatory. 
> Second, priority ordering will have no effect.

It makes clear what's most important at a gross level.  I was actually
surprised this wasn't the case and had initially presumed this was due
to going back and forth on some of the criteria.

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:20:25 +0000

Hiya,

On 30/01/17 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
> from the existing specification 

I think that'd be useful. But I was suggesting that the IAOC
document how their algorithm/processes (as outlined in section 5)
change over time.

> is quite different from a suggestion

I'm not sure how you got that from the text you quoted.
But that's ok, if we agree that section 5 needs some work
along the above lines (or to otherwise solve the issue)

S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:43:20 -0800

> to going back and forth on some of the criteria.

Eliot,

The requirements labels already make that clear.  And in the tabular 
form in the recent versions, it's quite easy to see those labels.

Having a claim that thinks are rank-ordered by priority carries the 
message that decision processes will treat entries differently, based on 
the ordering.  But that won't happen.

Again, this is the sort of thing that is entirely naturally to want to 
do, but in fact is either useless or misleading.  As such, it will 
mostly serve to confuse things, either within the decision process or 
when interacting with the community.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:47:26 -0600

I'm for obvious reasons, focusing on this one particular point:

On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]
> wrote:

So, I am clearly one of the noisier people on this and have been for almost
9 years now since we ended up at a venue where lunch arrangements precluded
a not insignificant number of us (albeit a minority) not being able to eat
lunch - the hotel didn't accommodate us and there were no nearby grocery
stores.   Perhaps, we ought to change the word "health" to "medical". In
the US, food allergies and diseases like celiac are considered invisible
disabilities and are covered by the American Disabilities Act (you know the
one that requires wheelchair access).   And, yes, the laws are not the same
worldwide, but this is by way of an example that this isn't a trivial issue
and while some of us are noisier, there are a lot of less noisy reasonable
people that also find this to be a very important issue.

The dietary restrictions are not a choice for some of us.  As I've said
umpteen times before, the alternative if the venue doesn't ensure we can
get safe food is that we have to hope that we have been lucky enough to get
the contraband we pack in our luggage through customs.

I realize it's hard to grok this issue if you are not directly impacted,
but I would love for folks that don't think that people being able to find
sufficient safe food during the week is mandatory to spend a week eating
only the foods that they pack in their luggage.   I usually bring 2 lbs of
pumpkin seeds and 8 oz of raisins strategically distributed amongst my
suitcase, backpack and jacket in the hopes that I'm at least left with
something if my luggage is searched.    And, I bring another pound  of nut
based granola and some dried blueberries along with almond or coconut milk
powder.  And, I have some spirulina, carrot and beet powders.   If you
calculate the calories, I likely could survive on what I bring with me but
that depends entirely on it not being confiscated.

And, yeah, you might think it an impossibility that we couldn't find safe
food, but for some of us with medical conditions, cross contamination is a
big problem.  For some of us the reaction is like a bad stomach flu with a
very strict limitation as to how far you can be from a bathroom for days at
a time.   How would you feel knowing that you had a choice of eating from
your luggage or spending a week at an IETF meeting with a stomach bug never
getting too far from the bathroom or even your hotel room?

Regards,
Mary.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 17:51:38 +0100

Ok.  Its a nit.  I don't mind.

On 1/30/17 5:43 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> message that decision processes will treat entries differently, based
> on the ordering.  But that won't happen.
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:37:26 -0800

On 1/30/2017 8:20 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>  But I was suggesting that the IAOC

That's the task of revising this document.  The document covers 
procedures.  As noted by a separate exchange this morning, that might 
make it appropriate to factor some of the current text into a separate 
document, to localize the change effort.

Is there some reason the basic question of documenting changed 
procedures should be handled differently than we do for other 
specifications?

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 18:58:20 +0000

> procedures should be handled differently than we do for other

Yes. IMO the procedures/processes set out in the RFC we'll
end up with will change significantly more often than the
RFC will be revised. In the interests of improved IAOC
transparency, (which I think we've agreed is a goal here)
it'd be good if variations from that are documented somehow
(however IAOC like is fine by me) in a way that's visible
to the community and subject to community consensus. That
mostly applies to section 5, but also perhaps to other
sections. (I'd have no problem if that was a general thing
nor if it were specific to section 5.)

S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:05:00 +0000

Hiya,

On 30/01/17 16:47, Mary Barnes wrote:
> So, I am clearly one of the noisier people on this 

Yep:-) And as I said, reasonably so.

> and have been for almost

So I've no problem with medical issues (as in your case)
being mandatory or treated at the same level as
accessibility or whatever is correct.

I don't however think the same applies to cases where the
dietary restriction is a choice. That's not because I
want to make anyone's life harder, it's just that I think
there's a slippery slope there of choices that people
could make.

And my mention of noise is down to my impression that
many of the times we discuss issues such as yours, that
gets conflated with cases that are down to personal
choices.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:12:44 +1300

> pay for business class airfare.)

Perhaps "typical business travel" would clarify the meaning.

  Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:28:16 -0800

> there's a slippery slope there of choices that people

Taken to its logical extreme, this might mean choosing a venue that has 
no acceptable choices for vegetarians.  Or for those who don't eat pork. 
  Or...

It is not reasonable to ignore the matter entirely, nor is it possible 
to accommodate all possible needs and preferences with detailed 
requirements.  Hence we have to find a balance between these extremes.

The current text was developed rather carefully and was the result of 
quite a number and variety of discussions seeking to strike a pragmatic 
balance.

If someone proposes changes to these bits of text, I strongly urge them 
to offer specific alternative text and very clear explanation for what 
makes it superior.

In particular the explanation should consider what benefits accrue and 
-- perhaps more importantly -- why the detriments are acceptable.

By way of example -- and I stress this is meant only as an example -- 
agreeing to Stephen's suggestion that Section 3.5 be made Important 
rather than Mandatory means that we could wind up at a venue that only 
serves pork and has no alternate sources of protein.  Silly?  In the 
particular, perhaps, but in terms of making attendance largely 
impossible for people with serious dietary restrictions? Not really.

The implicit view that these are matters of choice and, therefore, 
should be treated as secondary, misses both the fact that they are not 
at all a matter of choice for many folk, and that for many others, the 
choice is an integral part of their life.

Again, we cannot accommodate every detail for everyone.  So the text 
seeks to make things reasonably comfortable for a useful range, and 
reasonably tolerable for others.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:38:33 -0500

> there's a slippery slope there of choices that people

I don't want to turn this into a long digression, but I think you really need to think about what "choice" means.   For example, I can choose to eat a lot of foods that will keep me going until the next day, and won't require me to be close to a bathroom, but that definitely won't sit will and will make me sicker and sicker as the week goes by.   And there are people whose identity is tied up with what they eat: maybe they won't eat animals for ethical reasons, or won't eat non-kosher food, or non-halal food.

I think you walk a very threadbare tightrope when you try to draw a distinction between people who would get quite violently ill, people who would get only a little bit ill, and people who could manage perfectly well if only they'd give up their pesky principles.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:45:01 +1300

On 31/01/2017 08:28, Dave Crocker wrote:
...

But Mary said:

>> I usually bring 2 lbs of
>> powder.  And, I have some spirulina, carrot and beet powders. 

You do realise that in some countries, such as the one I live in, all
incoming baggage is X-rayed just in case you failed to declare every single
food item, and you can be fined on the spot for smuggling undeclared food
items? And anything considered to be a biohazard is confiscated. I'm not
saying that Mary's supplies would be illegal, but she would have to declare
them. This just illustrates the complexity of trying to cover *everything*
in this draft. We can't. We have to stick to relatively general criteria.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:04:31 -0800

> But Mary said:

Brian, I don't understand the 'but' used here.

What I meant by "reasonably tolerable for others" was that an attendee 
should not be required to bring a week's worth of their food.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:34:34 -0600

Yep. I'm aware that I'm always at risk for having things confiscated and
being fined.  And, no I don't declare what I have because in my experience
that guarantees they take everything since the folks doing the searching
aren't so good at discriminating what is a biohazard.  That's why I think
it's mandatory that either the venue can satisfy the dietary restrictions
or we have access to a grocery store (and not just a 7-11 sort of place) to
buy food.

Mary.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:10:37 +1300

...
> folks involved in meeting arrangements (hosts, locals,

It would surely depend on the urgency. If a major earthquake
hit the venue on the previous Friday, I would expect the IAD
(with the Secretariat) to take a decision within a few hours,
after a best effort to consult the IETF Chair and the local
hosts. If there was a week to go, a round of consultation
with the IAOC and the IESG would be possible.

> Ultimately, I'd say it'd be the IESG's responsibility

I don't think that's clear. BCP101 gives authority over business
decisions to IASA, which is led by the IAD, overseen by the
IAOC. Emergency cancellation of a meeting seems like a business
decision to me. But obviously, if time permits, consensus between
the IAD, the Secretariat, the IAOC and the IESG would be very
highly desirable.

In any case this seems out of scope for the present document.

    Brian

> but

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 13:18:44 -0900

> In any case this seems out of scope for the present document.

Yes, we're chartered to specify processes and policies for
venue selection.  That said, it seems like this should be
written down somewhere.

Melinda

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 05:27:23 +0100

> nor if it were specific to section 5.)

+1.