Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group

Jared Mauch <> Thu, 05 March 2020 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD963A0A1F for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Akyw-hgql_Kw for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B827F3A0A1E for <>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:23:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1C0FC54026F; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:23:27 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.\))
From: Jared Mauch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 14:23:26 -0500
Cc: Alissa Cooper <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Eliot Lear <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Disposition of the group
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:23:30 -0000

> On Mar 5, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Eliot Lear <> wrote:
> Hi Alissa,
> For sure we need the mailing list.  I don’t think we need the WG.  At least not yet.
> We need some running code, and so we should be conservative about reopening those documents too quickly.  This having been said, as you know, I’ve been somewhat interested in figuring out new modalities for meetings, or at least getting data to have the discussion.  Part of that was environment, part of that was effectiveness.  I don’t think any of us really considered the situation we are in today, and perhaps in April we will have a better idea as to whether additional process would be helpful.   Well, really you, Jay and the leadership will have war stories to tell us.
> An AI now rests with Jay on this to collect some data, and as I recall, there was another AI in which he would hire someone to help (but my memory could be faulty).  It may be premature for this group to engage with that person.  If my memory is correct, then perhaps we have to wait a few months, presumably until after Madrid, before even beginning to have the discussion about what we can reasonably consider improving.

One thing I’m concurred about at present is how much people would like to tweak as you call it the running code, with these things there is always something in-flight and we should permit the things after those documents to land then measure the results.  It may be helpful to document this someplace so we know what meetings were held with 8718 and 8719.

We also may yet see a giant experiment with 107 that is unplanned.  I for one would prefer to see many of the in-person meetings have less of a track experience and more of a cross-area experience as I believe that may be valuable.  

It’s also possible our standards space has escaped what can be practically dealt with by lone individuals who are not permanently employed to engage in the space.  These don’t directly relate to mtgvenue other than determining what can and will be scheduled and the usual time slot conflicts that exist.

- Jared