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

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 12:00:04 -0700

Ben Campbell 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 for this. Most of my comments are already covered, but here's a few:

Substantive:

§3.2.3 and §3.3: The first section says that the cost of "open and unfiltered
internet" in public spaces and guest rooms in "typically" included in the room
price. But the latter simply says they are included.  Is that the intenti? It
seems odd for the overflow hotels to be held to a higher standard than the
meeting hotel.

Editorial and Nits:

§1, 2nd paragraph: " the IASA to apply their " - Plural disagreement. (It looks
like a mix of the US English tendency to treat organizations as singular
entities and the British English tendency to treat them as plural collectives ).

§7: The last sentence seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; I
suggest a separate paragraph.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 16:59:45 -0500

Hi Ben,

I think the 3.2.3/3.3 mismatch is strictly editorial: I believe the 
intent was to have them both use the 3.2.3 language.

Other editorial points noted. Thanks.

pr

On 6 Jun 2018, at 14:00, Ben Campbell wrote:

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

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 21:57:30 -0500

Thanks for the quicl response. Your answer for the 3.2.3 and 3.3 mismatch is is perfectly reasonable.

Ben.

> On Jun 6, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ben,
> 
> I think the 3.2.3/3.3 mismatch is strictly editorial: I believe the intent was to have them both use the 3.2.3 language.
>