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

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

The Adelaide boycott made clear what the IETF community thought of Australia.
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg12078.html


Other larger conferences have been in Adelaide successfully - recently, the IAC.

draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt says, to my disbelief:
"meetings should rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia.
Please note that the boundaries between those regions has been purposefully
left undefined per WG consensus."

so, not Australia or South America, then? Good to know.

"Please note that the Emperor has clothing, but the clothes worn by the Emperor
has been purposefully left undefined, per consensus."

That working group might want to consult a schoolchild on what continental boundaries are.
Or, you know, look at a map.

L.

Pacific rimshot. 
Lloyd Wood [e-mail] http://about.me/lloydwood 



________________________________
From: Fred Baker <[e-mail]>
To: Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>; IETF Crazy <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, 23 April 2018, 7:21
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






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.