Re: [HT-rt] [EXTERNAL] Re: HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

On 21.04.18 05:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Glenn,
>
> On 21/04/2018 10:53, Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) wrote:
> ...
>>               <t>The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting food and beverage
>>                 is affordable, within the norms of business travel,    and 
>>                  there are at least some inexpensive and safe
>>                 alternative  accommodations within easy reach to the Facility
>>
>> [GD]  This is too vague to properly evaluable against and is why the business-travel norms was used.    There are guidelines for business travel costs that are available that can guide evaluation of the criteria.   However, terms like "inexpensive" , "safe" are very subjective and are not practical to evaluate against when testing the criteria in the document.
> The fact is that some people find the typical "official" IETF hotel rates
> exceed their budget. Try "substantially cheaper than the cheapest official
> hotel". I think IASA has enough common sense to know what "substantially"
> means.
>
> IASA surely already has to check the general safety of the area around the venue,
> and in any case the cheaper hotels need to be reasonably close. We already have
> text as follows:
>
>    o  The Facility environs include budget hotels within convenient
>       travel time, cost, and effort.
>
> Maybe that's enough. It excludes isolated out-of-town venues and the like.

Taken together what I am hearing is... leave it alone.

>
> ... 
>> [GD] The document is criteria used by IASA to vet a venue against, not a wish list to communicate to venues.  I do not wish to undermine aspirations, but this document is not the place to capture them.  It's used as an evaluation list IASA vet a venue against to determine if the venue meets the needs of the IETF community to meet at.   Putting it in the document does not serve to communicate the aspirations to the venue as we are not handing the document to the venues being evaluated.
> If the aspirations are clearly identified as such, I can't see any harm in
> including them. IASA will use the hard criteria for evaluation, and may use
> the aspirations for background.
>
>   

IMHO the way to read Section 3.3 is precisely to list aspirational
requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is that
AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against the
previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:

  * A bonus.  You get it when you get it, but you don't cry when you don't.
  * Something the Secretariat should track.

Eliot