Subject: [Mtgvenue] Draft Meeting Minutes

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 17:43:00 -0500

Folks,

Here are the draft meeting minutes. I've uploaded a copy to the meeting 
materials website as well, but if corrections are needed, they can be 
updated. Please review and post any corrections to the list ASAP.

Thanks,

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

**Meeting Venue (MTGVENUE) Working Group meeting**
IETF 98 - Chicago
0900 - 1130 Wednesday, March 29, 2017. Room: Zurich B
Chairs: Charles Eckel [email-masked], Pete Resnick 
[email-masked]
Notes thanks to Barry Leiba [email-masked], combined with 
comments captured during meeting via issue list in github, 
https://github.com/elear/mtgvenue/issues

Start at 9:05

Introductory remarks from chairs
Meeting Venue Selection Process draft
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/

*Issue #1: What is "mandatory"? (Pete)*

- Are there things that are "drop-dead show-stopper criteria"?
- Are there things where there's a line not to cross, but there is 
otherwise discretion?
- And then there are things that are fully discretionary.
- Fred: Yes, but what is the purpose and intended use of the document?
- Fred originally intended it to be something to use four years ahead, 
before the IAOC is deciding.
- Who will actually be making use of this doc?
- Chair considers the distinction not clear in the charter.
- Fred: Can't figure out what's mandatory until you know that.
- Ted: If the filter is the way we want it, it can be put anywhere in 
the process.
- Discussion of contract vs planning vs early considerations.
- What about things that change late in the process?
- Need to be explicit in the document about where in the process the 
application of some things might change.
- Tobias: Number of mandatory elements should be kept to an absolute 
minimum.
- More value in guidance than in making things mandatory.

Next steps: Editor will provide some introductory paragraphs to clarify 
how the criteria (mandatory or otherwise) apply at different times, and 
indicate that this document will provide community guidance for the 
IAOC. Might also add notes to each criteria about how they will be 
applied.

*Issue #2: (Need a decision tree, Was: Too many categories)*

- Eliot thinks he can handle this easily, and proposes rough outline 
text
- Nervousness about "writing code" rather than specifying requirements
- But we want to be clear about filtering and how the filters are used

Next steps: Post to list for guidance to whether to leave organization 
as is or organize with most important first, etc.

*Issue #3: Too much mandatory*

- By default, things should not be mandatory, and only mandatory with a 
really strong case
- If too much stuff is mandatory, we won't have a place for a meeting at 
all -- already hard
- Revisit the mandatories, with an eye toward reducing
- Alternative (Tobias): change all to "important", and then revisit
- Concern (Ted): that will set the WG process back considerably
- First have to be crystal clear about what "mandatory" means
- Proposed: A mandatory requirement is one such that if, at whatever 
point in the process we are, that requirement isn't met, we stop 
considering the venue at that point.
- Brian adds: "if, in the judgment of the IAOC".
- Pete would like to defer that until Eliot's recategorization process 
has been done
- How does mandatory change after the contract is signed?
- Proposal to include text that says the IAOC uses discretion, and may 
consult the community.
- Proposal: Things we can't put solid constraints on (such as safety) 
can't be "mandatory".

Next steps: Start by defining clearly what "Mandatory" means. Revisit 
list of mandatories, categorizing as important by default, and argue 
individually for any that are to be mandatory. Constrain mandatory 
requirements as much as possible. Eliot to make initial 
recategorization.

*Issue #4: Process innovation*

- No way to run consensus calls on venue selection.
- Need to make a different version of determining "acceptable" other 
than consensus.
- Proposal: remove text reading "IETF Consensus, with respect to this 
meeting Venue selection process" (etc)

Next steps: Consensus in room to remove text.

*Issue #5: Clarity on definitions re: hotel rooms*

- Hotel rooms might or might not be part of the facility?  Don't 
understand.
- Eliot and Andrew will work offline to clarify the definitions.

Next Steps: Eliot to work with Andrew offline on definitions and bring 
proposal back to the list

---

Switch to Suresh: meeting-policy document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/
Overview of changes since last version
Overview of open issues

*Issue #1: Why do we meet in new places?  Is one reason to attract new 
participants?*

- decision: no

Next steps: Remove text

*Issue #2: How do we define regions?*

- Really looking at travel difficulty/cost
- Therefore, be deliberately vague or say explicitly that it's a proxy 
for transportation issues

Next steps: Ted and Bob will work with Suresh on proposed text

*Issue #3: How do we define success criteria for exploratory meetings?*

- Alissa: We don't define success criteria for meetings.  Why do we need 
to define it for this?
- Bob: We do this so seldom; let's not spend a lot of time on this
- Klensin: If we have success criteria, they need to be stated by the 
proponents, and the discussion will wind up wasting a lot of time

Next steps: Remove text

---

Back to Eliot

*Issue #6: Terminology is hard to follow*

- Andrew and Eliot will work this out; Andrew will make an initial 
proposal

Next steps: Eliot and Andrew to work offline on evaluation of 
definitions and return to list with proposal

*Issue #7: Clarity of responsibility*

- Eliot will propose some text for the Introduction section to specify 
that the IAOC has the responsibility, and they are the ones who are 
appealed.

Next steps: Add this as introduction in section 1, taking Brian's 
proposal into account as well. Pete will try to find Brian's suggested 
text in the archive and get back to Eliot.

*Issue #8: What if target list of cities are not known? (Sec 5.1)*

- Eliot understands the issue and will propose a fix.

Next steps: Eliot to clarify, adding step to identify cities

*Issue #9: Concurrent objection?*

- Eliot will propose an editorial change.

Next steps: Indicate that community responses (step b) can come in 
continuously

*Issue #10: What happens if there is a change of policies in the 
interim?*

- Issue already covered in earlier discussion.

Next steps: Invoked if mandatory criterion is violated after contract 
has been signed

*Issue #11: Text seems strange (Sec 2.2)*

- "Maximal attendance" item needs editorial work.
- Key point is that we meet to get our work done, which might include 
welcoming new people, but that just making a big meeting is the 
non-objective.

Next step: Eliot to reword to less offensive and inclusive.

*Issue #12: Sponsor required as mandatory?*

- Will fall out of revisiting the mandatory items.
- Might actually split the issue; how hosts/sponsors are solicited might 
change
- Might remove the text altogether
- Proposal: remove this text
- Andrew notes that funding/cash-positive points might need further 
clarification

Next steps: Proposal to remove. Eliot to verify on list. 
Funding/sponsorship issue may need to be added as a separate issue. 
Discuss this on list.

*Issue #13: Handling repeats*

Next steps: Clarify "Venue" vs "Facility"

*Issue #14: Odd that accessibility requirements differ*

- Wheelchair (mandatory) vs disabilities (important)
- Wheelchair access is specific and easy to assess
- Other accessibility issues are complicated, harder to assess, and less 
available
- Therefore the concrete and accessible one is mandatory
- Will fall out of revisiting mandatory, and the two might be combined
- Result: Leave the current requirements as they are

Next steps: Discussion was inconclusive. Leave text as is and lieu of a 
concrete proposal for how to change.

*Issue: #15 Distinction between these two requirements?*

- Difference is Facility vs IETF Hotels
- Eliot will discuss with NOC folks

Next steps: Eliot to check if network specifications draft covers and 
reference it.

End at 11:30