Subject: [Mtgvenue] Alexey Melnikov's No Objection on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 03:09:42 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: No Objection

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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for this document.

I am wondering what is the relationship between the section "2.1.  Core Values"
and Section 3? I don't think all of core values are expressed as requirements.
Is section 2 (and 2.1) Informative?

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 06:56:13 -0400

It's informative.  While there's no explicit linkage, the intent was
indeed to link the requirements in Section 3 to Section 2, but to some
pragmatic extent.

Eliot

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 12:13:22 +0100

Hi Eliot,

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, at 11:56 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> It's informative. 

Can you maybe say so more clearly in the document?

> While there's no explicit linkage, the intent was
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:13:18 -0500

Alexey,

Are you thinking of the top of section 3 saying something like, "This 
section contains the criteria for IETF meetings based on the objectives 
described in section 2."? I think that's easy enough to do, and 
perfectly reasonable.

pr

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 11:10:06 +0100

> described in section 2."? I think that's easy enough to do, and 

I don't think all of you objectives in Section 2 are satisfied by Section 3, but the above text would help.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:46:46 -0500

On 8 Jun 2018, at 5:10, Alexey Melnikov wrote:

> I don't think all of you objectives in Section 2 are satisfied by 
> Section 3...

Such as? I found at least some text addressing each of them.

> ...but the above text would help.

Ack.

pr