Subject: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:37:36 +0200

Dear colleagues and IAOC members,

The change of venue for IETF 102 provides us an opportunity to check
whether or not draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process would
represent appropriate running code.  That is- was there a criteria that
became violated, and was the processed described in the draft  appropriate?

To answer the first question we look to the following Important criteria:

>    o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are
>       unlikely to impede attendance by an overwhelming majority of
>       participants.

This wording seems to fail the "document running code" test, because it
is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people would have problems
getting to San Francisco.  However, it seems likely that a significant
number of people would, and that seems to me what we meant in the first
place.  To avoid arguments over what "significant" means, I propose to
change the text to the following:

o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are unlikely to
impede attendance by more than 5% of expected participants.

To put this in perspective, and to demonstrate my multiplication skills;

5% of 1200  = 60 people.

If people prefer we could simply say "significant", and leave it ambiguous.

Let's assume such a change were in place.  At that point, we have text
in Section 5.5 that reads as follows:

>    If at any time after a contract is signed the IAOC learns where a
>    Venue's circumstances have significantly changed, such that the
>    Important or Mandatory criteria can no longer be met, the IAOC MUST
>    reconsider the selection.  A description of how reconsideration
>    currently takes place is found in Appendix B.  The IAOC will gauge
>    the cost of making a change against the ability of the IETF to
>    conclude a successful meeting, and make a final determination based
>    on their best judgment.  When there is enough time to do so, the IAOC
>    is expected to consult the community about changes.

It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate.

Would others mind having a look at the text and test my conclusions and
suggestions above?

Eliot

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:40:43 +0200

There is one more point that may be very relevant to consider here.

Are we going to have an IETF meeting in a venue/country if the authorities disallow traveling with the laptops in hand-baggage?

I’m not sure if we considered this before, but I think it is clear now we MUST.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mtgvenue <[email-masked]> en nombre de Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Responder a: <[email-masked]>
Fecha: martes, 18 de julio de 2017, 11:37
Para: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>, IAOC <[email-masked]>
Asunto: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

    

    

    5% of 1200  = 60 people.

    

    
    Eliot

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

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 05:45:47 -0400

Hi,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37:36AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:

> getting to San Francisco.

I agree.

> However, it seems likely that a significant

I like the 5% (or some other number) being in the criterion.  I feel
uncomfortable with "significant" because my inner social science nerd
immediately wants to start looking for 2 standard deviations, and I
think that would create a shifting window over time related to
changing immigration policies around the world.  Of course, if it
turns out that 5% of potential expected participants are always
excluded in some possible future world where immigration restriction
becomes the norm, that might mean we can never meet.

For this case, are we reasonably sure that it would have been 60ish
people?  If not, that appears to tell us that 5% is the wrong value
(unless we think it is an indication the IAOC is making a mistake, and
I don't get the impression that we collectively feel that way but I'm
not in a position to declare consensus).

> It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate.

I agree.

This is a nice test, by the way, and I'm glad we have the opportunity
to try this.

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:59:13 +0200

So my understanding is actually that the venue was chanced because of the uncertainty we currently have about the travel restrictions that may occur in future. So I actually think it does not match the bulletpoint on travel restrictions that is cited below.

Also how do we know that 60 people or more will be effected (despite the fact that we are taking about potential further changes that may happen in future but did not happen yet).

Mirja

> Am 18.07.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 12:43:52 +0200

> Also how do we know that 60 people or more will be effected (despite the fact that we are taking about potential further changes that may happen in future but did not happen yet).

My understanding is that this was based on the 15% number that Leslie 
cited in her recent announcement:

> 15% of those living outside the US who responded to the survey said they were so concerned about US travel restrictions that they decided not to attend IETF 98 in Chicago.

Prediction is hard business; however, it's been pointed out to me that 
"tomorrow will be the same as today" is frequently as good a predictor 
for weather as an actual, well-sourced forecast.

/a

---

From: Alia Atlas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:07:10 -0400

When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on the
order of 60 people in the past.  I recall the Honolulu meeting being
particularly problematic.

Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on historical
issues.  I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute number of
people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails.

Regards,
Alia

On Jul 18, 2017 11:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi,

I agree.

I agree.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:33:40 +0200

Alia,

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Alia Atlas <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on the order of 60 people in the past.  I recall the Honolulu meeting being particularly problematic.
> 
> Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on historical issues.  I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute number of people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails.

I support the move to Montreal, but it’s going to always be a judgement call because it is based on what the visa situation will be in the future.  Picking numbers is just a guess.  Even in the best of times, getting visas can vary based on events we can’t predict.

I think a better criteria is think about reducing the risk of a disruption of a meeting.  If it appears that the visa policy of a country reduces the likelihood of a successful meeting, then the IAOC should consider moving it.

Bob

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:36:50 +0200

Hi Alia,

On 7/18/17 1:07 PM, Alia Atlas wrote:
> When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on
> the order of 60 people in the past.  I recall the Honolulu meeting
> being particularly problematic.  
>
> Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on
> historical issues.  I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute
> number of people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails.

This is indeed the problem with actually using a number or percentage. 
Now we have to validate that we have the right number.  Yes, I've been
outed.  This # is a finger in the wind.  I was hoping I was measuring
the breeze correctly, but perhaps not.  For this I ask for input,
because I don't have a good feel for what that right number is.

Eliot

>
> Regards,
> Alia
>
> On Jul 18, 2017 11:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     unlikely to
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>
>
>

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:16:56 -0400

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> My understanding is that this was based on the 15% number that Leslie cited in her recent announcement:
> 
> Prediction is hard business; however, it's been pointed out to me that "tomorrow will be the same as today" is frequently as good a predictor for weather as an actual, well-sourced forecast.

15% of people who responded to the survey is not the same as 15% of expected attendees. The survey gave us an indication of concerns in the portion of the community who chose to respond to it.

Also, this is a minor detail, but at the time when we may need to make a venue change decision, we may not have an expected attendee number for the relevant meeting. For example, we don’t presently have the expected attendee number for IETF 102 because those numbers get established as part of the 2018 budgeting process, which starts next month. The estimates have been somewhat stable in consecutive years, but that could change. So if people are wanting to be real strict about this (e.g., thinking that 60 is different from 55), it might involve having to generate the expected attendee number further in advance than usual, or using a number from a previous year or something.

Alissa

---

From: "Leslie Daigle" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:32:10 -0400

A quick further point:   I think the bar is logically different if 
we’re looking at meetings that are close in (where disruption to the 
IETF budget and to individuals’ plans)  versus longer term planning (a 
year or more out).

Consider as separate cases:  Our meeting in Buenos Aires last year, had 
Zika been discovered in Argentina in February; this meeting that is 
(now) a year out.

Leslie.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 18 Jul 2017, at 9:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>>> So my understanding is actually that the venue was chanced because 
>>> of the uncertainty we currently have about the travel restrictions 
>>> that may occur in future. So I actually think it does not match the 
>>> bulletpoint on travel restrictions that is cited below.
>>>
>>> Also how do we know that 60 people or more will be effected (despite 
>>> the fact that we are taking about potential further changes that may 
>>> happen in future but did not happen yet).
>>
>>> 15% of those living outside the US who responded to the survey said 
>>> they were so concerned about US travel restrictions that they 
>>> decided not to attend IETF 98 in Chicago.
>>
>> Prediction is hard business; however, it's been pointed out to me 
>> that "tomorrow will be the same as today" is frequently as good a 
>> predictor for weather as an actual, well-sourced forecast.
>
> 15% of people who responded to the survey is not the same as 15% of 
> expected attendees. The survey gave us an indication of concerns in 
> the portion of the community who chose to respond to it.
>
> Also, this is a minor detail, but at the time when we may need to make 
> a venue change decision, we may not have an expected attendee number 
> for the relevant meeting. For example, we don’t presently have the 
> expected attendee number for IETF 102 because those numbers get 
> established as part of the 2018 budgeting process, which starts next 
> month. The estimates have been somewhat stable in consecutive years, 
> but that could change. So if people are wanting to be real strict 
> about this (e.g., thinking that 60 is different from 55), it might 
> involve having to generate the expected attendee number further in 
> advance than usual, or using a number from a previous year or 
> something.
>
> Alissa
>
>>
>> /a
>>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:20:12 +0200

[Re-sending from my correct address]

On 18 Jul 2017, at 11:37, Eliot Lear wrote:

> ...look to the following Important criteria:
>
>
> place.

Upon re-reading, I think you actually reversed this. The criteria above 
is that an overwhelming majority are *not* impeded from attending. In 
the San Francisco case, it can be plausibly claimed that the majority of 
folks who are able to attend was not overwhelming; there were too many 
people in the minority who could not attend. So, while imprecise, I 
don't think the running code failed to match the document: Someone 
determined that the majority did not "overwhelm" and therefore the 
switch was made.

pr

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