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

[Fred Baker <[e-mail]>]

On Apr 22, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    Agreed, and I think the crux of the conversation underway is whether
>    these guidelines are aspirational or mandatory.

I (the guy who originally came up with a plan like this, back when the IETF demographics were about 1/6 European and 5/6 North American, with a few "others", and described a policy of 5-1 which I promptly added Adelaide to) have always understood them to be aspirational. Harald decided to try 1-1-1, as I recall, because he thought that if he did the demographics might change accordingly.

Speaking strictly for myself, I would be OK with a policy of 2-1-1-* given a supporting consensus. We have difficulty putting together asian locations, for reasons best described in terms of business-cultural norms in Asia. On at least one occasion, asians have told us that Honolulu and Vancouver were easy enough for asians to get to that they would consider them "honorary asian locations" when one in that pert of the world was being hard to arrange. I note that we seem to wind up in Vancouver more frequently than one might statistically expect - Vancouver is often a good location for a number of reasons. Maybe that's the right trade-off?

That said, I'm with Melinda on holding these drafts hostage to that discussion.