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

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 21:06:11 -0700

Adam Roach 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone who worked on this document.

I agree with Spencer's concern that this document is tightly tied to the current
IASA structure, which is under revision at the moment. I think it would be an
improvement to describe, in more general terms, the entity responsible for
selecting venues, with a single note early in the document that the entity
currently in that role is the IASA.

I also have a handful of editorial nits that the authors may wish to address.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please expand "IASA" in the Abstract, assuming it remains in the Abstract.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract:

>  It directs the IASA to make available additional process
>  documents around that describe the current meeting selection process.

I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. It seems to make sense if
you remove "around".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§2.1:

>     criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
>     the case where local laws may require filtering in some
>     circumstances.[MeetingNet]

It's not clear what "[MeetingNet]" is doing here. Perhaps some explanatory text
about what the reader can expect to find at that reference would be useful.

In any case, consider putting a space before the opening bracket.

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 07:06:09 +0200

Hi Adam,

(Editor hat)

It's hard when we have a lot of moving parts to try to nail down terms
like IASA.  Indeed the document used to have far more detail.  The one
term we really couldn't get rid of, though, was IASA itself.  We could
have run with "either IASA or its succeeding entities", but honestly it
begins to sound a bit like "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince".

The choice, then, was to say that it is up to iasa2.0 to produce
documents that address this point.

Eliot

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:10:52 -0500

Hi Adam,

See my reply to Spencer regarding IASA 2.0 for some more details. As 
Eliot said, the current edit was an attempt to take that into account, 
which we worked out with our AD. Perhaps something to discuss on the 
telechat.

I'll be sure we cover the two editorial bits. Thanks for those.

pr

On 5 Jun 2018, at 23:06, Adam Roach wrote:

> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:36:12 -0500

Pete, Eliot --

Thanks for your quick responses. Although I continue to beleive that 
there are cleaner ways to thread this needle, the current approach isn't 
actually problematic, and it sounds like it has already had significant 
consideration. I appreciate the time you have each taken to explain the 
history of this text.

/a