Re: IETF 127 San Francisco reassessment

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jay,

A clarifying question below.

On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:59 PM Jay Daley <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ted
>
> This response is sent on behalf of the IETF LLC Board.
>
> > On 23 May 2025, at 20:12, Ted Hardie <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Jay, Roman, and members of the IETF LLC board,
> >
> > In the statement below, you say:
> >
> >> It also considered the viability of the meeting and concluded that
> there will be sufficient participation for the meeting to be financially
> viable and to meet the threshold set by the IESG for a technically viable
> meeting [3].
> >>
> > The citation is to the IESG response for the community discussion for
> Shenzhen, not for a decision by the IESG about San Francisco.  In that
> process the LLC was asked to “explicitly confirm with the IESG that the
> core objective from RFC8718 of ‘Why we meet’ will be met”.
> >
> > Is this reference meant to indicate that the IETF LLC used the data from
> the previous consultation to make this decision?  Or did the IETF LLC
> explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 will
> be met?
> >
> > Roman, if the latter, I would appreciate a citation from the IESG and a
> summary similar to that in section E of
> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary_version_2024-10-08.pdf
> .  I believe it is very important that the community understand the IESG's
> conclusion here, in addition to the IETF LLC's, as the IESG is charged with
> the standards process and part of the risk here is to the standards process.
> >
> > Jay, if the former, I would like to understand why the IESG was not
> asked a similar question, given the community objections raised.
> >
> > My thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your responses,
>
> The IETF LLC introduced a new step in the venue selection process that
> asked the IESG to assess if a meeting will be technically viable, in
> response to community concerns about a meeting in China. This process was
> followed for that meeting’s venue planning.  In their decision, the IESG
> effectively set a lower bound on participation by core contributors
> necessary for a productive meeting.
>
>
For clarity, do you believe the new lower bound to be that set by IETF 113,
which is cited in the IESG's decision or the predicted attendance for
China?  If I am interpreting things correctly, the onsite attendance for
IETF 113  was 22% and this occurred as the pandemic lockdowns were just
beginning to be eased. (from appendix D of the IESG decision).  The
predicted attendance for the China meeting is 51% (from appendix E).


> As part of the venue assessment process, the IETF LLC Board signs off on
> estimates of onsite participation for every meeting and the corresponding
> meeting space requirements and accommodation guarantees, taking on the risk
> of over/under usage each time it does so.  The IETF LLC Board, as part of
> its broader review of the IETF 127 San Francisco meeting, concluded that
> participation would be above the lower bound set by the IESG and therefore
> the new step of asking the IESG was not required.
>
>
I do not believe that this change was communicated to the community
adequately, if it was communicated (I cannot find it in my archives).  If
the IESG has set a participation floor, I believe it would be appropriate
for that to be communicated via an IESG note, which generally get community
attention.

My thanks for your response,

Ted Hardie




> kind regards
> Jay
>
> --
> Jay Daley
> IETF Executive Director
> [e-mail]
>
>