Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sat, 21 April 2018 17:50 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE88112D875 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:50:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.608
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dkkDkzHPztlL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5718D120727 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 188-v6so10761171oih.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+3qTvLyodAKxEWRbugUZYPt8MF2ICIAu7mFZ9yshoH8=; b=JeCpNEqS7s4fcmd+zOJwqhK94q5FaX9cJYp5PrcbIGDrUexwR0d3v7g1zNP5A2PSu9 2T4HEVCNL860cyKeNbPCJ6QbvJovyKnY/eX9COrq8c/sLOqjBLyMHUpTiuYe42aX0AIk fwXAgSNGUVeuzfrC8xgCsdQXWezyoQCu1+5sbT0ZZlqpmuiQ7hnojoBZgB74Fecyk0Ic 1NvflC5KAuSi7F4SSGTgY4I0nhwuDFROBAC83mN1OQMqWqIIW99iBcxzANcIuwWFwBoB IvjnIhLjrKSrOnVeoaEPPlL/W2eZ6YMgFprdYFC9vPm8UD32FJm37QdRzRDYVHY7BbiZ mGrQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+3qTvLyodAKxEWRbugUZYPt8MF2ICIAu7mFZ9yshoH8=; b=X9ncqMgZTmAf4HlmE7Ey0+LC+5Y0zI5TY4shJIxEYyil+zkDKXlt+I0BWOVCCuW4j3 ISYPGyrb5kKxt28AOU2qlbxKAkr4rKxCmJBOHSZySPYSy6AriwhxH8D7O0c/LhjtK3oC h20B0rx8yKw6MM9+gWkiiCbDG+m8VmMKnvlJPsS5cajM0Z7JEig2CUUmyUptnVIWyO2X x5TcY49fEYLakhiHhpzxQYl2HRqmPVFZKsmNn6XfWZkRTASMAGawJNwGW2nvfawb4STb jp3JbiN25ZhwkbPRps048V8xcvVCBuZksfLeO+3bNKqFlWKpzrhRbbCRMnq0BosbPs3C SI4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBPP/HF/pIX99F1cT1qzpxPEqsLix/M/iGlu1TJN9aKXICJK0U+ p0I+6e6JL8TqhcQeo/1K3UijXbaTH4Fghr7sJdCo3Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4/l3h01NHzT8LIMJLm8hEGrhRx1OtC75Mb7GvLZsPztoZE48WfanEATg0aWg0ije8v8GljgRGQTppKfxihe/1E=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:b3d4:: with SMTP id c203-v6mr9439470oif.91.1524333014654; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.201.118.130 with HTTP; Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:49:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <162e93119e0.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
References: <152295916074.25912.932711807710247299.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20180419013457.fq4ruqj7p4lfwxb4@mx4.yitter.info> <CABcZeBPXUqe6ixF+Yx7P6E3Jt3fGjAMUrP368DTedGq-O-T61Q@mail.gmail.com> <ED191002-261F-4E3C-A359-CBFEF1812AF8@iii.ca> <162e93119e0.27d3.9b4188e636579690ba6c69f2c8a0f1fd@labn.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 10:49:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMyV4pHXEkVSyqFMohEJyg=Ch3-K7nERHFJ+PFa7uoOMw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
To: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, mtgvenue@ietf.org, IETF Crazy <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dbb432056a5f6f02"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/BmT7U3ksgYetVjQrqHC8889B1lw>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 17:50:18 -0000
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> wrote: > While it is true that NA makes up a the biggest group overall, I think > that it is worth noting that when we meet in Asia we have about 40% > participation from Asia, and when we meet in Europe we have about 40% from > Europe. > Hi Lou, The data has evolved over time, so it's a bit hard to interpret, but I don't think this is necessarily the best characterization of the situation. As you said earlier, there have been 6 Asian meetings in the period IETF 72-IETF 102, with steadily falling Asian attendance fractions: 3 Hiroshima 0.4995997 6 Beijing 0.4805389 9 Taipei 0.4005709 21 Yokohama 0.3866846 24 Seoul 0.3286418 27 Singapore 0.2966625 In the same period, we have had 10 European meetings, with more or less flat European attendance: City EU.Frac 2 Stockholm 0.3577236 5 Maastricht 0.3561013 7 Prague 0.3647416 10 Paris 0.3747547 14 Berlin 0.3842271 16 London 0.3885350 20 Prague 0.3627010 23 Berlin 0.3748686 26 Prague 0.3491124 28 London 0.3787654 In case people are curious, here's the data for all meetings and all geographies: Meeting.Number City Cont Asia.Frac EU.Frac NA.Frac 1 74 San Francisco NA 0.1863261 0.2223892 0.5514651 2 75 Stockholm EU 0.2357724 0.3577236 0.3617886 3 76 Hiroshima AS 0.4995997 0.1905524 0.2818255 4 77 Anaheim NA 0.2251852 0.1977778 0.5392593 5 78 Maastricht EU 0.2709133 0.3561013 0.3376823 6 79 Beijing AS 0.4805389 0.1826347 0.2979042 7 80 Prague EU 0.2180851 0.3647416 0.3837386 8 81 Quebec City NA 0.2419614 0.2114148 0.5072347 9 82 Taipei AS 0.4005709 0.2007612 0.3720266 10 83 Paris EU 0.2060170 0.3747547 0.3754088 11 84 Vancouver NA 0.2330383 0.2028024 0.5044248 12 85 Atlanta NA 0.2087343 0.1917098 0.5396003 13 86 Orlando NA 0.1937858 0.2035977 0.5568275 14 87 Berlin EU 0.1873817 0.3842271 0.3564669 15 88 Vancouver NA 0.1782832 0.2017608 0.5436537 16 89 London EU 0.1649682 0.3885350 0.3936306 17 90 Toronto NA 0.1810402 0.2073733 0.5227123 18 91 Hawaii NA 0.2098854 0.2098854 0.5150430 19 92 Dallas NA 0.1787440 0.1994479 0.5383023 20 93 Prague EU 0.1729904 0.3627010 0.4032154 21 94 Yokohama AS 0.3866846 0.1997310 0.3443174 22 95 Buenos Aires SA 0.2483553 0.1973684 0.3563596 23 96 Berlin EU 0.1966351 0.3748686 0.3449001 24 97 Seoul AS 0.3286418 0.2174525 0.3631246 25 98 Chicago NA 0.1993846 0.2123077 0.5027692 26 99 Prague EU 0.1791286 0.3491124 0.3717052 27 100 Singapore AS 0.2966625 0.2626700 0.3751545 28 101 London EU 0.1748148 0.3787654 0.3570370 -Ekr Lou > ------------------------------ > > On April 21, 2018 11:57:50 AM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote: > >> >> When we went to a 1-1-1 policy, we agreed the locations should roughly >> match participants location to be fair. The argument was made that if we >> had more meetings outside north america, the participation would come to >> match approximately 1/3 , 1/3 , 1/3. That has clearly not happened so I >> think we need set the rotation of where we do meeting to something we agree >> is fair to our participants. >> >> I do not support the 1-1-1 policy as it is based on a false premise that >> this mirrors our participation. >> >> >> On Apr 19, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >> Andrew, >> >> Thanks for raising this. >> >> While the stated rationale in S 2. is to spread travel pain around, >> I don't really think this gets us to 1-1-1-*. >> >> First, if you look at historical demographics, over the past 12 IETFs, >> we have 23% Asia, 26% Europe, and 42% NA). Put another way, the last >> time we had > 1/3 Asian attendance was IETF 94 in Yokohama, and the >> last time we had less than 1/3 NA attendance was IETF 79 in Beijing. >> So, a policy that was designed to match per-continent attendance would >> be more like 2-1-1-*. >> >> Second, continent is not a very good proxy for travel pain, both >> because Asia is so large (for instance, the shortest Tokyo to >> Singapore route is 7:25 out and 7:10 back (on JAL) and the shortest >> Tokyo - Honolulu route (ANA) is 7:20/8:10, so not really much >> different at all) and because flight connections are such a big >> contributor ( for instance, SFO-BKK is almost 20 hours, whereas >> SFO-NRT is 11). >> >> Bottom line, if this is supposed to be real requirements rather >> than just aspirations, I think it needs a rethink. >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear IESG, >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:12:40PM -0700, The IESG wrote: >>> > >>> > The IESG has received a request from the Meeting Venue WG (mtgvenue) to >>> > consider the following document: - 'High level guidance for the meeting >>> > policy of the IETF' >>> > <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> as Best Current Practice >>> >>> In a recent discussion, the IAOC came to realise that the documents >>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process and >>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy may be in some tension. One of >>> them requires the IASA to balance meeting venues over time, and the >>> other has requirements that a meeting must meet. >>> >>> One possible difficulty that arises from the combination is if one >>> region turns out to be vastly more expensive than others. In that >>> case, some criteria for each venue may not be met in one region. The >>> result might also be financially ruinous for the IETF in general. >>> >>> The current IAOC interprets the drafts such that any of the criteria >>> except those in section 3.1 of >>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process may be traded against >>> any other, over several years if need be, in order to meet the >>> geographic distribution policy described in >>> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy. Assuming the documents are >>> published as they are currently written, we will use that >>> interpretation as governing IASA implementation decisions. It is >>> worth noting that, among the criteria that could be traded are those >>> of affordability. If that is not the interpretation of the IETF >>> community, then some clarification is needed to the text. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> for the IAOC >>> >>> -- >>> Andrew Sullivan >>> ajs@anvilwalrusden.com >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mtgvenue mailing list >> Mtgvenue@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue >> >> >>
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Eric Rescorla
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Richard Barnes
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Ted Lemon
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: 1-1-1 or whateverm was … John Levine
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Adam Roach
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: 1-1-1 or whateverm was … Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… tom p.
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Lou Berger
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… John Levine
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Fred Baker
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Russ Housley
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Randy Bush
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Jeff Tantsura
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Suresh Krishnan
- Venue definition and distribution comments summar… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: Venue definition and distribution comments su… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-me… Russ Housley
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-polic… Alissa Cooper