Subject: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:51:05 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I like where the exchange on Martin's comment has ended up.  Thanks for that.

Everything following my first comment is editorial (at most).

Given that we have an active effort to produce IASA 2.0, is

   As always, the community is
   encouraged to provide direct feedback to the Nominations Committee
   (NOMCOM), Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), and IAB
   regarding the discharge of the IASA's performance.

going to age well?

I think

  Focus:
      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
      a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" [RFC6771]
      - or in side meetings.

should have the reference at the end of the sentence, as in

 Focus:
      We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
      limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
      are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
      a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" or side
      meeting [RFC6771].

[RFC6771] uses both terms interchangeably.

Not asking for a text change on this, but I wonder when the last meeting was

  o  The Facility's support technologies and services -- network,
      audio-video, etc. -- are sufficient for the anticipated activities
      at the meeting, or the Facility is willing to add such
      infrastructure or these support technologies and services might be
      provided by a third party, all at no -- or at an acceptable --
      cost to the IETF.

where the Facility provided these things at no cost to the IETF ...

I wonder if "something of a preference for" is easy for ESL folk.

  o  We have something of a preference for an IETF meeting to be under
      "One Roof".  That is, qualified meeting space and guest rooms are
      available in the same facility.

I note that the following bullets are all "it is desirable".

This is a side question for the AD, but I note that we've started including
long-lived URLs in RFCs, and I wonder if a URL could be selected to include in
this text:

4.  Documentation Requirements

   The IETF Community works best when it is well informed.  This memo
   does not specify processes nor who has responsibility for fulfilling
   our requirements for meetings.  Nevertheless, both of these aspects
   are important.  Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
   current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
   meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
   fulfill the requirements of the community.

ISTM that people would click on it more often if they didn't have to search for
it ...

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 21:33:57 -0500

Hi Spencer,

Thanks for the comments. Some replies below:

> I like where the exchange on Martin's comment has ended up.  Thanks 

You're very welcome. I think the WG had the same intention, and the 
verbiage is easy to add.

>    regarding the discharge of the IASA's performance.

We did discuss this with our AD. Indeed, that's why we removed a bunch 
of text about IASA/IAOC procedure. But I believe (and our AD or editor 
can correct me if I'm wrong) the conclusion we came to is that the text 
here is OK. My presumption is that whatever IASA 2.0 comes up with, it 
will either call itself "IASA" or lay out how tasks from older documents 
are mapped to newly named structures.

> [RFC6771] uses both terms interchangeably.

Seems reasonable.

> where the Facility provided these things at no cost to the IETF ...

Hmmm....I took it to mean that a third party might provide them at no 
cost, but I see the ambiguity now that you ask that question. I don't 
know the answer to your question, and perhaps the editor can explain the 
intent of the sentence to clarify.

> I note that the following bullets are all "it is desirable".

I believe that this text was to state the "preference" more softly. 
Perhaps even, "There is some preference for"?

> This is a side question for the AD

I will leave it to her.

Cheers,

pr

> but I note that we've started including

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 22:34:34 -0500

Hi, Pete,

> are mapped to newly named structures.

"Do the right thing", of course.

> intent of the sentence to clarify.

Thanks!

I wondered if some future stuckee might think we expect that the Facility
would provide free stuff as a common occurrence ...

> Perhaps even, "There is some preference for"?

My native English speaker guess is that this would be clearer. Perhaps
someone on this list could offer an informed non-native English speaker
opinion? ;-)

> This is a side question for the AD

Cheerio!

Spencer