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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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.

Lou




----------
On April 21, 2018 11:57:50 AM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail] 
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> 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
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>