Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 07 January 2016 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 813111ABD3C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:08:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Sy9Ozj63-cAk for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD0871A9240 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jan 2016 11:08:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1aHFv4-0003H6-AR; Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:08:22 -0500
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:08:17 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org>
Subject: Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111
Message-ID: <02FAD6B271183972FE511EF0@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <2AED06ED-932E-45A5-860B-93FC2E78BE27@isoc.org>
References: <20160105210603.26728.22600.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <AB383E7EE1632A97AC7D544E@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2AED06ED-932E-45A5-860B-93FC2E78BE27@isoc.org>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/lkh8rSrnIQ69VfNBRTrl2tvZ_iw>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:08:28 -0000
Ray, I think you missed the main point of my concern/question (in addition to the issue Behcet commented on). Apologies if I was not clear. I am completely confident about the ability of the IAOC and the Meetings Committee to evaluate financial risks and get things right on those issues. However, with regard to setting the policies and priorities (other than at least breaking even) that determine meeting locations, my understanding of how the IETF works is that the IAOC is supposed to be interpreting community views (or proposing policies to the community and getting approval) and instructing the Meetings Committee accordingly. Independent of the specific concerns, complaints, and general whining about particular venues or choices, the thing I, and apparently others, have heard most consistently in recent years involves people in the community saying "we should reprioritize so-and-so" and the IAOC or meetings committee responding "can't do that because we are working three years out". Some people have expressed the suspicion that a response of that type is equivalent to "the tradeoffs are complicated, the community can't possibly understand them, we understand these things better than the community does anyway, so we aren't really interested in input or community oversight". Even without believing that, if working three years ahead effectively suppresses priority determination by the community by making any such efforts ineffective within any reasonable time, then 5 1/2 is much worse. Put differently, I think the community gives some things up with the "3 year" plan, including a lot of potential for close oversight. Personally, I think that tradeoff is reasonable (and two years certainly would be). But, as we push past three years and toward 5 1/2 or Fred's nine, the community gives up far more oversight capability and I think that is unwise.... at least unless the IAOC and/or meetings committee are willing to provide a model for preserving that policy and priority oversight while committing venues far in advance. Your "these are the issues we consider, but priorities among them may vary" notes and information are, IMO, _very_ helpful, but don't address the issues because the community really should be able to understand the priorities or at least evaluate the consequences of how they are applied and then make changes as the community deems appropriate. best, john --On Thursday, January 07, 2016 11:03 -0500 Ray Pelletier <rpelletier@isoc.org> wrote: >... > John, >> Reflecting on the current discussion of hotels and observing >> that several people have expressed concern about statements >> like "can't do anything to change the policies or affect that >> date or location because we are working three years out", >> does this imply that you and the IAOC are making commitments >> we could not change if we wanted to (even if circumstances >> changed) 5 1/2 years out. I'm all in favor of pinning down >> dates well in advance but, when we start talking about >> commitments to "venues", it is a source of some small anxiety. > > Thanks for raising the issue. We always evaluate the risks > when entering into contracts, especially hotel contracts into > the future.
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Lou Berger
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Mary Barnes
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Michael Richardson
- Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and 111 IETF Administrative Director
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Ray Pelletier
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leif Johansson
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Scott Bradner
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leslie Daigle
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Nadeau Thomas
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Michael StJohns
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Jari Arkko
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Leif Johansson
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … thomas nadeau
- Virtual BOFs (was: Re: Venue Announcement for IET… John C Klensin
- Re: Virtual BOFs Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Virtual BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Virtual BOFs John C Klensin
- Re: Venue Announcement for IETFs 98, 99, 102 and … Doug Barton
- Re: Virtual BOFs Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Virtual BOFs John C Klensin