Subject: [Mtgvenue] Issue 4: process innovation

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:43:02 +0200

Based on the meeting results, the following text is to be removed:

   IETF consensus, with respect to this meeting Venue selection process
   is judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g.,
   surveys.  Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting
   venues, but not to measure consensus or to be reported as consensus.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:54:52 +0100

Hi Eliot,

I wasn't in the room, did read the minute, and am confused here...

>    venues, but not to measure consensus or to be reported as consensus.

I totally agree that IETF consensus is not required to pick a venue
or reject a venue. Similarly, I agree that things like post-meeting
surveys can't be used to establish whether there is or is not IETF
consensus.

However, I do think IETF consensus is (or ought be) required for
the venue selection process and for significant changes to that
process. Otherwise, what are we doing here?

The change suggested here seems to go against that latter point.

What am I missing?

If what I'm missing is that this is stated elsewhere then that'd
be fine.

Cheers,
S.

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:59:55 +0200

Hi Stephen,

> If what I'm missing is that this is stated elsewhere then that'd

I think the intent is for this document to be The Overarching Process. 
Want to change the overarching process?  Got to update this document. 
That means this document has to be resilient to small process changes
(e.g., how the IAOC manages its internal structure).

Make sense?

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:10:47 +0100

Hiya,

> (e.g., how the IAOC manages its internal structure).

The intent makes sense yes. I'm not sure the language will if we
just delete the suggested bit and it's not elsewhere stated that
<significant> changes to the venue selection process do need IETF
consensus.

I don't think we ought try fully characterise exactly which kinds
of potential changes are <significant>, it'd be fine by me if that
can be done in this document, e.g. by saying that some things are
how the IAOC currently operates and may change, or via some other
editorial mechanism.

But I do think it needs to be stated somewhere and somehow that
the IAOC cannot unilaterally change all of this process itself
without coming back to get a fresh consensus call. The reason I
think that's important is so that the IAOC doesn't become the tail
wagging the dog. (To be clear: I do not think that is a problem
now with the IAOC, and personally think that to the extent there
are any such perceptions those are likely created by a lack of
transparency, but GOTO iasa/2 for discussion of that I guess;-)

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 02:23:36 +1200

> <significant> changes to the venue selection process do need IETF

But *this document* is an IETF Stream document so it is created, and
would be updated or obsoleted, by IETF consensus. Of course this
document can and probably should make it clear how much discretion
the IASA has.

     Brian

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:45:52 -0400

+1 to Brian and Stephen's comments. 

What about going with AJS' rephrasing:

> IETF consensus, with respect to the meeting venue selection process
> herein outlined, is judged according to standard IETF process and
> not by any other means, e.g., surveys. Surveys are used to gather
> information related to Venues, but not to measure consensus
> or to be reported as consensus. By the same token, Venue decisions
> are not themselves subject to IETF consensus, and are instead
> decisions taken by the IAOC.

Lou

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 13:11:13 -0400

so what's the resolution to this issue?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:41:26 +0200

At the moment it's not in.  I don't mind adding it in, if that's what
people want.

Eliot

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:13:00 -0400

what's the next step - Chair consensus call?

Lou

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 06:16:26 +1200

>>> decisions taken by the IAOC.

This is a prime example of a place where we need s/IAOC/IASA/, unless
we rename the IAOC as the IETF Administrative Executive Committee,
which this WG can't do.

Apart from that, I have no problem with adding this text.

    Brian

> .

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:18:33 +0200

The chairs can decide that.

Speaking not as an editor for a moment and as an individual, perhaps you
can help me understand what the text accomplishes?  What practice would
change based on those words?

Eliot

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:27:32 -0400

Elliot,

On 4/11/2017 2:18 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> can help me understand what the text accomplishes?
yes, separating the perspectives of editor vs individual vs contributor
can be tricky.

>   What practice would

I think Brian and Stephen's mail did a fine job explaining why such
words are useful -- hence my +1.  Also, these are not my proposed words;
they are Andrew's as captured in your personal issue tracker.  They are
also ones that I'd find acceptable. (With Brian's correction.)

Lou

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:32:59 +0200

Lou,

> also ones that I'd find acceptable. (With Brian's correction.)

This is what confuses me.  Brian and Stephen disagreed.  Here is the

> document can and probably should make it clear how much discretion

And so I don't understand your point of view.  What precisely are you
suggesting and why are you suggesting it?

Eliot

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 14:46:22 -0400

Eliot,

Funny -- I saw agreement on the core issue addressed by the text:

>>     just delete the suggested bit and it's not elsewhere stated 
>>

>From Stephen:
>>     that

>> would be updated or obsoleted, by IETF consensus. 
>From Brian:
>> Of course this

So the core point is that IETF consensus in the context of meeting
venues is no different than IETF consensus in any other contexts-  I
think this is supported by both Stephen's and Brian's comments.  They of
course are free to tell me I misread their intent.

WRT the text: There have been times when Surveys are used, and it's
important to clarify that these are not changes in IETF process in how
consensus is judged-- as the IASA doesn't set policy or have the
discretion on how to determine IETF consensus.  The final sentence was
added to clarify that the paragraph shouldn't be interpreted as saying
that a specific meeting selection is not subject to IETF consensus.

Lou

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 21:26:48 +0200

Hi Lou,

Thanks for the clarification.  I now understand your argument. 
Editorial hat off still... Please now see below:

> that a specific meeting selection is not subject to IETF consensus.

Here is the text in question, which is located in Section 4.1.

>    venues, but not to measure consensus or to be reported as consensus.

Andrew's original concern with the text was that it seemed to be
engaging in process invention in as much as somehow there might be
consensus calls on meeting venue issues, and he preferred the text be
removed, which is what the room wanted in Chicago.  Alternatively, he

> decisions taken by the IAOC.

We have no requirement for IETF consensus calls relating to meetings in
the document.  That leaves surveys as being confusing with regard to
whether they reflect IETF community consensus.  My only question now is
this: has such a survey call ever been used in some fashion to declare a
consensus?  If the answer really is “yes” then I see the argument for
text staying in the doc, and I would even want to strengthen it
further.  If the answer is, “no”, then I believe (again my personal
opinion - editor hat off)  the text should be removed under the argument
that less is more (Housley Rule).

Eliot

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 15:34:46 -0400

Hi Elliot,

On 4/11/2017 3:26 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> ...
> the document. 
*but* we do wrt IETF process and the IASA doesn't get to change this.

>  That leaves surveys as being confusing with regard to
> consensus?  
IMO I believe it has been used this way in the past, albeit with thinly
cloaked veils.  The survey in support of meeting in BA comes to mind...

Lou
> If the answer really is “yes” then I see the argument for

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 23:34:38 +0200

Hi Lou,

Last message for the evening, I promise.  Still no editor hat.

> *but* we do wrt IETF process and the IASA doesn't get to change this.

When has the IASA tried to make such a change, and what other existing
processes should we also document that the IASA isn't allowed to change?
(We have quite a few, as you know.)

> cloaked veils.  The survey in support of meeting in BA comes to mind...

I took a trip through the Way Back Machine and reviewed the messages
perhaps to which you refer.[1,2]  One of these notes contains an
analysis of a survey of the community that is used to support the
decision the IAOC made.  What's interesting: the messages do not in any
way claim or imply community consensus.  What they do is try to answer a
question: could we successfully hold a meeting in BA?  One way to
determine that was to look at the % of participants who were willing to
trundle down that way, and some 72% of active respondents stated at the
time that they likely would, well within the bounds of two other venues
we've attended in the past, something worth noting.  A sobering point,
however: our numbers WERE down in BA, if memory serves correctly,
perhaps demonstrating the limits of surveys.

We can certainly insert Andrew's version of the text, if this is what
the group wants.  But a few cautions:  It’s easy chase shadows in this
text, and that is my concern, because we can always find more shadows. 
If the purpose of this document is to guide IAOC in how they should make
meeting venue selections, then at least the public messages I referred
to do not seem to support the argument that they claimed community
consensus on any sort of decision, policy or venue.  Rather, they were
using the existing 1-1-1* approach, and used hard numbers to explain how
those numbers informed a controversial decision that was theirs to
make.  What is important is to make clear in this document that the IAOC
does hold the final say regarding where a meeting is held, which by
implication means they do not require any sort of community consensus to
make a decision that is within the parameters of this document, when
approved.

One other point: stating a policy across two documents creates its own
set of hazards in terms of what happens should they change.  The text we
are discussing presents that hazard, as may certain other parts of
Section 4.  I may open an issue on that separately as an individual.

Eliot

[1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg90430.html
[2]
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/3QBP9abucJIpTIH12DTv35iaqmc

---

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:07:08 -0400

Eliot,

Thanks for the detailed response. I know we differ on this point.  Perhaps 
due to our own personal experiences on this topic.

On April 11, 2017 5:35:16 PM Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> the group wants.

That would be great.  Now to the detail of id'ing what the group wants...  
(Keep current text, use ajs' alternative language or drop statement on 
consensus WRT the venue selection process.)  Which, of course, I leave to 
the editor and chairs...

Lou

---

From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 17:34:27 +0000

Rereading Issue: 4 and the notes from our meeting in Chicago, my interpretation is that Andrew preferred removing the text below:

IETF consensus, with respect to this meeting Venue selection process
is judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g.,
surveys. Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting
venues, but not to measure consensus or to be reported as
consensus.[1]

As a second choice, he proposed alternate text. We noted the consensus in the room to be in agreement with Andrew’s preferred solution, i.e. that we remove the text [1]. 

Regarding Stephen’s concern, hopefully the following text in section 5 cover it.

5.  Venue Selection Steps

   The following is a guideline sequence states the current practice as
   it should be today for identifying and contracting a Venue.  Such
   guidelines will likely need to evolve over time.  The IAOC may change
   these guidelines when needed by publishing updated guidelines and
   following the normal IETF consensus process.[2]

So now to clarify on the list, can anyone not live with removing the text [1] from section 4?

Cheers,
Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> on behalf of Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 3:07 PM
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue 4: process innovation

    Eliot,

    

    Lou

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:58:04 +0200

Hi Charles,

> As a second choice, he proposed alternate text. We noted the consensus in the room to be in agreement with Andrew’s preferred solution, i.e. that we remove the text [1].

Ok.
> So now to clarify on the list, can anyone not live with removing the text [1] from section 4?

The above text may require some fine tuning of the text in Section 5. 
For instance, I do not believe that Stephen had in mind hardcoding of
committee structure or division of labor within the purview of the IAOC.

Eliot