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

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:35:42 -0700

Alvaro Retana 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The term "participant" is used in several places, sometimes with different
modifiers; for example: active, IETF and regular.  Some of the phrases seem to
want to differentiate between them, but that distinction is not clear (for
example): "in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active
participants, balancing travel time and expense across the regions in which
IETF participants are based."  What is the difference between active and IETF
participants?

Note that "attendee" is also used, in my interpretation, to also mean
"participant".  Is that the intent, or is there a difference?

Clarifying and being consistent would help.  I don't think that a terminology
section is needed -- I just want to probe whether the terms were differentiated
on purpose, and, if so, to understand what that differentiation may be.

(2) From §2.2 (Venue Selection Non-Objectives)

Maximal attendance:
     While the IETF strives to be as inclusive as possible both online
     and in person, maximal meeting attendance in and of itself is not
     a goal.  It would defeat a key goal of meeting if active
     contributors with differing points of view did not have the
     opportunity to resolve their disagreements, no matter how full the
     rooms.

Should maximal attendance by "active contributors" be listed as an objective? 
Measuring what that means will not be easy...but that seems to be corollary:
the text above sounds like it says "it doesn't matter how many people show up,
as long as active contributors are there".

BTW, following up on my first point, what's the relationship between
"contributor" and "participant"?  Is there a difference between an "active
contributor" and an "active participant"?

(3) §3.2 (Important Criteria) says that "when a particular requirement in this
section cannot be met...it may be appropriate for the IASA to assist those who,
as a result, have been inconvenienced in some way."

What does the IASA providing assistance mean?  Looking at the criteria, would
(for example) a high cost be considered an inconvenience?  Knowing that the
intent is to spread the burden "over the course of multiple years", who
determines that inconvenience?  How could the IASA assist?  Maybe there's some
other purpose for that sentence for which I'm missing context.

(4) §3.2.5 (Food and Beverage)

   It is said that an army travels on its stomach.  So too does the
   IETF.  The following criteria relate to food and beverage.

Personal opinion: unfortunate quote and comparison.

   ...
   o  A range of attendee's health-related and religion-related dietary
      requirements can be satisfied with robust and flexible onsite
      service or through access to an adequate grocery.

   o  The Facility environs include grocery shopping that will
      accommodate a wide range of dietary requirements, within a
      reasonable walking distance, or conveniently accessible by a short
      taxi, bus, or subway ride, from the Facility and IETF Hotels.

These last two bullets sound almost the same: the difference seems to be in
calling for "robust and flexible onsite service" in the first one.  Maybe they
can be merged.

(5) I think that the reference to rfc3935 should be a Normative reference given
that it defines why we meet (§2.1).

(6) Is the intent for this document and draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy to
be part of the same BCP?  I would think so, but I didn't see that mentioned an
the writeups.

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:27:18 -0500

Hi Alvaro,

We'll give these a scrub to make sure they're consistent. My take is:

-  "IETF participants" is simply "participants" and, the "IETF" bit 
should simply be removed.

- The "where we meet" section mentions "active" participants because we 
want meetings near people who are currently contributing participants.

- The "least astonishment" section mentions "regular" participants 
because we want people who regularly follow or contribute to work to be 
able to easily discover information.

- "Attendees" are people who actually show up at a meeting. 
"Participants" are people who participate in the IETF (whether in person 
or electronically) who might want to show up at a meeting.

> as long as active contributors are there".

I believe that's captured in the "where we meet" section in 2.1.

> contributor" and an "active participant"?

As I indicated above, I think "active contributor" == "active 
participant".

> other purpose for that sentence for which I'm missing context.

For cost, the assistance could come in the form of identifying lower 
cost hotels. For visa issues, the assistance could be in the form of 
contacting local folks to attempt to expedite approval. IASA is expected 
to weigh the inconveniences and take them into account.

> Personal opinion: unfortunate quote and comparison.

Taken under advisement. Certainly it was intended tongue-in-cheek.

(Interesting read: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/10/15/army/ )

> calling for "robust and flexible onsite service" in the first one.  

Reasonable point. We'll see if we can combine.

> that it defines why we meet (§2.1).

I don't think someone needs to read the mission statement to understand 
the process described here, nor do I think if there is an update to 3935 
it is likely to affect this document.

> be part of the same BCP?  I would think so, but I didn't see that 

Good point. That makes sense. I'll review existing BCPs to see if it 
fits in any of them, or just the two belong in one together.

Thanks,

pr

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 04:21:51 -0700

On June 6, 2018 at 6:27:22 PM, Pete Resnick ([email-masked])
wrote:

Pete:

Hi!

Just insisting a little bit more on consistent terminology...

On 6 Jun 2018, at 11:35 <http://airmail.calendar/2018-06-06 11:35:00 EDT>,
Alvaro Retana wrote:

(1) The term "participant" is used in several places, sometimes with
different
modifiers; for example: active, IETF and regular. Some of the phrases seem
to
want to differentiate between them, but that distinction is not clear (for
example): "in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel among active
participants, balancing travel time and expense across the regions in which
IETF participants are based." What is the difference between active and IETF
participants?

Clarifying and being consistent would help. I don't think that a terminology
section is needed -- I just want to probe whether the terms were
differentiated
on purpose, and, if so, to understand what that differentiation may be.

Your take sounds fine to me, and it is about the same as my own.  However,
the real point here is that we shouldn’t leave this up to interpretation.
While many/most people involved in the selection may interpret the text the
same way as you or me, we don’t have certainty that the interpretation
won’t change over time.

   -

   "IETF participants" is simply "participants" and, the "IETF" bit should
   simply be removed.
   -

   The "where we meet" section mentions "active" participants because we
   want meetings near people who are currently contributing participants.

You added a new modifier in the explanation: “contributing"…but that is not
what that section says anyway.  The text is: "We meet in different
locations globally, in order to spread the difficulty and cost of travel
among active participants, balancing travel time and expense across the
regions in which IETF participants are based.”  The balancing is to be done
where “IETF participants” live, not where “active participants” do (which I
interpret to be the contributing ones).

   -

   The "least astonishment" section mentions "regular" participants because
   we want people who regularly follow or contribute to work to be able to
   easily discover information.
   -

   "Attendees" are people who actually show up at a meeting. "Participants"
   are people who participate in the IETF (whether in person or
   electronically) who might want to show up at a meeting.

Thanks!

Alvaro.

---

From: Mary Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 10:58:14 -0500

One point below [MB].

Mary.

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>    "IETF participants" is simply "participants" and, the "IETF" bit
>    The "least astonishment" section mentions "regular" participants
>    "Attendees" are people who actually show up at a meeting.
>    "Participants" are people who participate in the IETF (whether in person or
> As I indicated above, I think "active contributor" == "active participant".
>
> For cost, the assistance could come in the form of identifying lower cost
> hotels. For visa issues, the assistance could be in the form of contacting
> local folks to attempt to expedite approval. IASA is expected to weigh the
> inconveniences and take them into account.
>
[MB] Please don't.   I don't think we want to belabor the food issue yet
again.   The first bullet gives those that select venues an "out" in terms
of expecting the venue to accommodate the dietary requirements.  Ideally,
the venue should be able to support the requirements.  If not, then we hope
that those that select the venue at least heed the requirements in the
second bullet.   Personally, I have an issue with that "out" and the
general fact that we actually don't consider having food to eat essential
for some attendees when selecting a venue. We have a mandatory requirement
for physical disabilities but none for invisible disabilities (e.g., celiac
disease which is covered by the American Disabilities Act and is considered
equally as impacting on daily life activities as being in wheelchair).
I've have written a whole document describing how we can ensure a venue can
support the requirements.  But, I've pretty much given up the battle.
[/MB]

> the process described here, nor do I think if there is an update to 3935 it
> is likely to affect this document.
>
> Good point. That makes sense. I'll review existing BCPs to see if it fits
> in any of them, or just the two belong in one together.
>
> Thanks,
>
> pr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 18:10:15 -0500

On 7 Jun 2018, at 10:58, Mary Barnes wrote:

> Please don't.   I don't think we want to belabor the food issue yet 
> again.   The first bullet gives those that select venues an "out" in 
> terms of expecting the venue to accommodate the dietary 
> requirements.  Ideally, the venue should be able to support the 
> requirements.  If not, then we hope that those that select the venue 
> at least heed the requirements in the second bullet. 

Crap. You're exactly right Mary. That was the reasoning behind keeping 
the two bullets. Pete fail. Let's leave this as-is.

> Personally, I have an issue with that "out" and the general fact that 
> we actually don't consider having food to eat essential for some 
> attendees when selecting a venue. We have a mandatory requirement for 
> physical disabilities but none for invisible disabilities

Actually, that's not quite true: The only mandatory criteria regarding 
disabilities at all is for wheelchair access, and the only reason that 
one ended up in there was because the WG concluded that it was the one 
particular item that it knew the IASA couldn't even consider contracting 
if it wasn't there. With regard to disabilities generally, and food in 
particular, they are all handled in the important criteria section, 
meaning IASA was going to have to use judgement and make the community 
aware if those criteria cannot be met.

But either way, I agree that we should leave this section alone.

pr