Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04.txt

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 17:34:51 +0100

Dave,

Your edit captured the gist of my comment.  I will raise a separate
issue in another email.

Eliot

On 12/29/16 4:52 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> G'day,
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 7:44 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Meeting Venue  of the IETF.
> ...
>>     Filename        :
>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04.txt
>
>
>
> Changes include:
>>       Various clarifying bits to provide some glue between the
>>       high-level 'objectives' and the detailed criteria and roles, per
>>       suggestions from Lear.  Editorial changes, per 12/27 response to
>>       Cooper.  Refined uses of 'facility' and 'venue', per 12/4 response
>
> as well as improved "Consultation" text from Berger.
>
>
> On the use of 'facility' and 'venue':
>
>      Please do look over their occurrences and see whether this
> version makes these references clearer.
>
>
> d/
>

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 17:40:02 +0100

Hi,

IETF leadership tends to use BCPs as a means of enforcement.  That can't
be the case with this document.  It simply is impracticable to rework
contracts based on some sort of appeal, for instance.  At best,
therefore, this is the IETF community's advice to the IAOC about how it
would like venues selected.  At the end of the day, if members of the
community are unhappy with the IAOC's venue selections, the appropriate
recourse is the NOMCOM and not some sort of appeal.  I would like this
further clarified in the document.

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:01:08 -0800

On 1/6/2017 8:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> At the end of the day, if members of the

ack. suggested text, please...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:04:41 -0800

On 12/29/2016 7:44 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

Folks,

Keying off of Eliot's posting this morning, I'd like to renew the 
request for comments on the latest working group draft.

With respect to the social/legal/etc. concerns about venues, perhaps the 
most important change, relative to the alt version, is in section 3.1, 
with the addition of:

 >  | Consultation with the IETF Community has not         | "Mandatory |
 >  | produced concerns sufficient to disqualify the       | "          |
 >  | Venue.                                               |            |

and removal of the "to the IETF community" from a couple of the items 
below this.

As Alissa had noted, those two items weren't the only ones subject to 
community review.  So, addition of the new, first item is meant to be 
more encompassing.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 12:19:48 -0500

Eliot,

> further clarified in the document.

I'm not sure how viable this is for a specific meeting, but that's not
to say that there can't be some longer term/process impact via the
nomcom path.

I have a little experience with trying this path.  The announcement of
the 2016 venues was the straw that made me volunteer for the IAOC and I
got appointed ~2 years ago.  Even then it was too late for me to have
any impact on changing Singapore as a venue (my objections were based on
expense and IETF 100 relevance, not the objection which I was unaware of
that was raised by the community) .

That said, I do believe I've been able to have some impact on meeting
selection as an IAOC member -- specifically promoting the idea of repeat
locations for cost benefits, (somewhat) improving transparency, and
initiating the draft with the personal objective of ensuring that the
venue selection process follows a community driven/consensus process.

Also, keep in mind that the IAOC is made up of mostly non-nomcom
appointed members.

Lou

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 19:13:38 +0100

Hi Lou,

Yes, there is this indirection with NOMCOM.  Having a voice is
important.  I don't really know the composition of the meetings
committee, but it seems to me that perhaps that is a place for a certain
amount of diversity so that concerns can be identified early.  Maybe
it's just me, but when I consider a question like, “should the IETF meet
in a certain location?” my first question is, would I be comfortable
with my wife or daughter present?  In other words, I personalize it.  I
would expect others do something similar, if only subconsciously.  Had
Ted been a member of that committee, I'm sure we never would have been
standing there in BA in that uncomfortable situation, even if the
decision were STILL to go to Singapore (Ted's better at this than me- he
can put himself in many people's shoes).

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 10:20:53 -0800

On 1/6/2017 10:13 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I don't really know the composition of the meetings

Eliot,

What you describe is a natural and common view, but in terms of 
methodology it makes a classic sampling error:  it assumes that /some/ 
diversity ensures /enough/ diversity.  A healthy bit of diversity does 
help, but since the size of the committee is necessarily limited, it is 
guaranteed that its diversity will /always/ be limited.

So, for example, I believe that all of my co-participants in the 
meetings committee do, in fact, bring their personal concerns into play, 
just as you suggest.  That was not sufficient to uncover a community 
concern about Singapore.  Your suggestion that if only Ted had been a 
participant misses the point that there is always the likelihood that 
the committee composition will lack some useful perspective for some 
relevant issue.

The only way we are ever going to align city selections with community 
concerns is to get the community, itself, to raise those concerns. 
Relying on meetings committee membership to do this is never going to 
ensure proper synchrony with the community.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 14:19:41 -0500

Elliot,

Thanks for the response.

On 1/6/2017 1:13 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> amount of diversity so that concerns can be identified early.  

Just fyi:

subcomittee membership can be found at
https://iaoc.ietf.org/committees.html#meetings

also there was a call for volunteers not too long ago, see [1], and I'd
expect to see annually going forward.

Lou

[1]
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg15684.html

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2017 08:45:42 +1300

> community review.  So, addition of the new, first item is meant to be 

And I think it does the job, because it makes it clear that the IAOC's job
is to consult the community and then to decide what to do, which makes the
responsibility much clearer than the earlier version.

I've put the whole document back on my reading list, since I think it now
needs to be reviewed as a whole again.

    Brian

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 09:38:33 -0800

Hi Eliot,
At 10:13 06-01-2017, Eliot Lear wrote:
>it's just me, but when I consider a question like, "should the IETF meet
>in a certain location?" my first question is, would I be comfortable

The meeting committee is not responsible to the 
IETF.  The line of responsibility goes to the 
IAOC.  For what it worth, 20% of the IAOC members are appointed by Nomcom.

It is not unusual for a person to think about 
whether he or she would like to go to 
venue.  However, the selection of venue should 
not be a matter of personal preference.  the 
question to ask is whether there be any concerns 
from IETF attendees if that venue is 
selected.  It is not possible for a select group 
of persons to be aware of all the 
concerns.  However, they should have read the 
IETF discussion list and the triannual attendees 
mailing lists to get a sense of which concerns might be raised.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 10:44:23 -0800

On 1/8/2017 9:38 AM, S Moonesamy wrote:
> However, they should have read the IETF discussion list and the
> triannual attendees mailing lists to get a sense of which concerns might
> be raised.

SM, I think your summary matches the model that some others share.

However prior to the announcement of Singapore, what record was there on 
"the IETF discussion list and the triannual attendees mailing lists" 
that informed the IAOC/Meetings committee about the concerns that were 
finally raised about Singapore?

Any model that presumes that the IAOC/Meetings committee is going to 
know all of the relevant concerns of the IETF community, about each 
possible meeting city, is certain to fail eventually.  There are too 
many possible issues and their importance to the community varies over 
time.

No formalized text is going to be sufficiently accurate or complete over 
the long term.  Stating broad principles can be helpful for shared 
reference during discussion, but assuming that any such text will 
provide sufficient synchrony between the committee and the community 
will eventually fail.

The only way to ensure that community concerns are recognized adequately 
is for the open, early-stage community comment process that has recently 
been added.  And it effectively marginalizes the importance of any 
detailed document text we might create, about political/legal/social 
concerns.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2017 13:59:52 -0800

Hi Dave,
At 10:44 08-01-2017, Dave Crocker wrote:
>However prior to the announcement of Singapore, what record was 
>there on "the IETF discussion list and the triannual attendees 
>mailing lists" that informed the IAOC/Meetings committee about the 
>concerns that were finally raised about Singapore?

There isn't any record of the concerns.

>many possible issues and their importance to the community varies over time.

I'll put this differently; it is not possible to identify all the 
future concerns at the time when the decision about the venue is taken.

>No formalized text is going to be sufficiently accurate or complete 
>over the long term.  Stating broad principles can be helpful for 
>shared reference during discussion, but assuming that any such text 
>will provide sufficient synchrony between the committee and the 
>community will eventually fail.

Yes.

>The only way to ensure that community concerns are recognized 
>adequately is for the open, early-stage community comment process 
>that has recently been added.  And it effectively marginalizes the 
>importance of any detailed document text we might create, about 
>political/legal/social concerns.

My guess is that the open early-stage comment period can be a good 
way to capture some of the concerns.  The discussions about meetings 
and the detailed document highlighted that the IAOC may have 
overlooked basic stuff over the years, e.g. travel advisories.  If I 
am not mistaken, there has only been two occurrences of 
political/legal concerns over the years.

There are some good things in the draft, i.e. issues which should not 
be revisited on a triannual basis.  There are also some IETF policy 
questions, e.g. is the venue selection about endorsing or condemning 
the political choices of a country which is selected as a venue.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:32:05 -0800

On 12/29/2016 7:44 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04.txt

Folks,

G'day.

This draft has been out almost 4 weeks.  While there have been bits of 
additional discussion, there have been no requests for specific changes, 
nor indication of wg consensus to make them.

Given the evolution of the document's content, it could reasonably be 
assessed as stable and useful.

Could we please get closure on the document's status and move things along?

Thanks.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Laura Nugent <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:54:43 -0800

Hi Dave.

Once the document is in a place where people are more or less satisfied with it, I will conduct the assessment discussed in Berlin.  This assessment will consist of my review of past meetings, applying the requirements outlined in the document to see where we would and would not Now be able to hold an IETF meeting.

Laura

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 09:32, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> This draft has been out almost 4 weeks.  While there have been bits of additional discussion, there have been no requests for specific changes, nor indication of wg consensus to make them.
> 
> Given the evolution of the document's content, it could reasonably be assessed as stable and useful.
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 10:26:48 -0900

I have to apologize for having been out-of-touch on this -
by way of a not-very-good excuse I've just switched jobs
and am traveling.

That said, the document is done when it's done and I
believe that there are some issues that are still open
because of participant fatigue rather than actually
having been resolved.  That is a source of considerable
concern.  We're going to push to get the document into
wglc before the March meeting but I think it needs to be
on the basis of issue resolution rather than discussion
quiescence.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 11:43:16 -0800

> on the basis of issue resolution rather than discussion

Without seeming to ignore the Sullivan draft, I'll suggest that there 
are no change requests for the working group draft.  That is, there's 
been various discussions, but nothing producing direct change requests, 
although they have been repeatedly solicited.

So if the document has 'issues' pending, what exactly are they and what 
will it take to resolve them?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 13:34:21 -0500

Melinda (Chairs, WG, ...)

On 1/24/2017 2:26 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> I
> concern.
It would be good to hear what issues are *not* resolved by the most
recent rev of the draft.  I believe the author's, lead by Dave, think
the document captures the all issues and  resolutions discussed on the
list.  If we've overlooked something, we're happy to discuss and try to
resolve it.

Cheers,
Lou

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 09:42:17 -0900

I apologize - I'm still plowing through the mailing list.
I plan to have a summary out by EOB tomorrow.  I know that
people are frustrated.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 11:04:27 -0800

> Once the document is in a place where people are more or less satisfied with it, I will conduct the assessment discussed in Berlin.  This assessment will consist of my review of past meetings, appl…

Laura,

Thanks!  The idea of our existing array of venues being used as a kind 
of test corpora for the wg's output is enticing...

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker