[Gendispatch] Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-hardie-venue-reassessment-00.txt

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Vittorio,

Thanks for reading and commenting.  The amount of time between the request
for reconsideration and the meeting will certainly be taken into account by
the IETF LLC and the IESG in assessing the next steps after a request has
been received.  The issue that this is trying to address is that we don't
have a stated process to request reconsideration at this point, even though
we have had reconsiderations in the past (e.g. IETF 102's move to Montreal
from San Francisco).  Without any clarity on what qualifies as a reason to
request reconsideration or the process that is followed, we have even less
certainty now than we would if we had one, or at least that's my view.

I understand your concern that a relatively small number of people could
make this request, but I will point out that our history is that formal
requests that require coordination (like leadership recalls) are very rare;
the community takes them seriously and does not present them frivolously.

Lastly, I will point out that one of the reasons for reconsideration if
this is approved is exactly equivalent to the one you raised: folks who
were originally able to meet in person finding out after venue selection
that this is no longer the case and their travel plans being disrupted as a
result.  I hope your concerns about the potential impact on your plans help
you empathize with their issues.  As noted above, very short time scales
for action after a reconsideration request may result in different
responses by the IETF LLC and IESG, and we may want to note that in the
draft.  Like all -00s, it is just an initial proposal for consideration.

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Fri, Nov 7, 2025 at 4:11 PM Vittorio Bertola <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Il 07/11/2025 14:04 EST Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> ha scritto:
>
>
> Howdy GENDISPATCH,
>
> Roman and I chatted some time ago about this draft, and this is the
> mailing he suggested that I post it to for initial discussion.  I'm also
> happy to receive private comments, if you have any.
>
> Please don't do this. Maybe I am the only one, but I have to get funding
> for travel to IETF meetings in the previous year, as part of a budgeting
> cycle, and I need to know with certainty when and where they will be,
> whether I can attach other things to the same trip, and so on. Any change
> in location less than 12 months in advance will create problems, so it
> should be strictly limited to real force majeure situations such as global
> pandemic or war, and I am sure that the LLC is already authorized to assess
> whether such situations arise and deal with them. (ICANN did this recently
> for its planned Muscat meeting due to mlitary clashes in neighbouring
> countries, and even in that case, a lot of people were financially damaged
> and vocally unhappy, there were claims of unfairness and prejudice against
> certain areas of the world, and so on.)
>
> The idea that any 10 IETF participants (i.e. 0,1-0,2% of the average
> attendance) could force a period of uncertainty on travel plans at any time
> and at short notice is IMHO really disruptive. I could understand an appeal
> right after a new location is announced, and in fact we have seen several
> objections after some announcements, which have been addressed multiple
> times already. But after a while, certainty over our collective plans
> becomes more important than allowing a small group of people to challenge a
> specific venue selection for the Nth time.
>
> -- vb.
>