Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 26 March 2007 19:58 UTC
Return-path: <68attendees-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVvKN-00029p-2o; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:58:03 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVvKL-00029j-Qr for 68attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:58:01 -0400
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HVvKI-0006Gd-Vf for 68attendees@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:58:01 -0400
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=p3.JCK.COM) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HVvKG-000MTR-UQ; Mon, 26 Mar 2007 14:57:57 -0500
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 15:57:56 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>
Subject: Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine
Message-ID: <A7651A2718589A5A3CAA6F86@p3.JCK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <BA477D52-B39E-4F11-AD3E-7EC57CEAC11B@cisco.com>
References: <460692B6.70603@andybierman.com> <BA477D52-B39E-4F11-AD3E-7EC57CEAC11B@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.7 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8
Cc: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: 68attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for IETF 68 attendees." <68attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/68attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:68attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees>, <mailto:68attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 68attendees-bounces@ietf.org
Fred, One final observation from me, and then I'm dropping out of this conversation rather than prolonging it. --On Monday, 26 March, 2007 07:50 +0200 Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote: >... > Two formulations I recall > using have been that "the IETF meets where its participants > hail from" and "if I'm working in the IETF, once in a while > the meeting should happen near me". >... > The objective is, as you say, fairness > among those who already do. >... > I analyzed the then-posted Internet Drafts > (as the most reasonable database of people definitively > working in the IETF at the time), and came up with roughly 675 > people, who seemed to be distributed 80% North America, 16% > Europe, and 4% everywhere else. On the basis of the doctrine, > I instructed the secretariat to schedule one meeting in six in > Europe, and on my watch we met in Munich in 1997, Oslo in >... > Between 1996 and 2001, the demographics changed vastly in the > direction of Europe and Japan, and they have continued to > widen. We are now distributed roughly evenly between Europe, > Eastern Asia, and North America. We have very few participants > from South America, Africa, Antarctica, or that part of the > world variously called "Western Asia" or "the Middle East", > and we have a handful from the land of Oz. IETF policy under > Harald and Brian, who oversaw a great change in demographic, > has been to move in the direction of meeting roughly 1/3 of > the time Europe, Eastern Asia, and North America for that > reason. >... This is a lucid presentation of the criteria, or some of them, that you used. You told the community at the time what those criteria were. My expectation is that the IAOC will develop similar criteria, that they will announce them to the community, and that they will listen to community feedback to tune those criteria. Being realistic, I assume that you (collectively) will need to weight the criteria to actually schedule real meetings in real places. I do not expect those weights to be exactly the same from meeting to meeting, nor do I expect the IAOC to get into a discussion with the community about weighting factors. I also do not expect the IAD to engage in a discussion with the community about provisions of a particular hotel contract: BCP 101 appears to me to explicitly exclude that requirement. The problems recently have, IMO, been one of communication, not choices, and of taking responsibility for the choices that are made. I think there may also have been some disagreement between the IAOC and the community about expectations about openness and/or how important the community thinks openness to be. For example, I believe that, if one signs a long-term contract with a hotel chain, BCP 101 requires that at least a summary of the provisions of that contract and what obligations it imposes on the IETF be posted, expediously, on the IAOC web site, not merely announced (in press release form) on the IETF list. I also believe that the IAOC should be making the list of things that are considered in selecting meeting sites clear to the community, just as you did above and while you were IETF Chair. When an IAOC member appears to tell me, instead, that the choices are very complex and that they can't be explained to the community, we have a rather significant disconnect because I don't believe that BCP 101 allows the IAOC to operate in a model of "we are the experts and you don't get to find out and/or shouldn't ask". Now, my personal criteria come pretty close to Stewart Bryant's principle of being sure that the "people that need to be in the meetings and in the corridors to get the work done will be there". I think your "near where people are" rule, and some others, are ultimately ways to realize that principle. I expect the IAOC and IAD to work out the details, but I expect them to tell the community what criteria they have worked out and to listen to the inevitable feedback when it comes in. That is really all. And, for the record, I've been completely satisfied by Ray's responses along these dimensions. regards, john _______________________________________________ 68ATTENDEES mailing list 68ATTENDEES@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/68attendees
- [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Andy Bierman
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Antoin Verschuren
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Andy Bierman
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Derek Atkins
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Fred Baker
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Nicolas Williams
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Andy Bierman
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Stewart Bryant
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Nicolas Williams
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Eric Gray (LO/EUS)
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Nicolas Williams
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine John C Klensin
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Lou Berger
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Avri Doria
- RE: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Lots of hotels Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness … Janet P Gunn
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Randall Gellens
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Andy Bierman
- Re: [68ATTENDEES] Travel Fairness Doctrine Michael Richardson