Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred
Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com> Tue, 18 July 2017 11:07 UTC
Return-Path: <akatlas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD03D131794; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 zVwTFRauQRoK; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5081C1316C3; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 12so24031746wrb.1; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8IvBub1y+mLxu1o8UXBPE0Lg78GSWOjlddcrwnvmFCE=; b=FOhepuV+/a/fEKGcFYLJ1T8YiwOEMRpAAqTbshfJrczjK6GJVvB30CsZ+98u7/Y7RN qra0bc7jQAFN/Vf5KfdqQqSwOZriKBab3+dmC3WYCRg52T4IkCq6xN+JvxjuSkA+4v2g +eepuEBFyj78+9jmI7dgAd2BTfttVIO6JNbka3CcvPCdNxOC6agvVLfN3UJIHVdGGzjw J2bRoeTOjuDINwtpgeMspF9uH/F4RYb9CHgGMLxi1rWxVLxBhri7EZhDwt+mG0E7aySg LtgaxQXTNWWePKmVLM8MjiBGiXM+OQVgxxLjrl9zrke54nUf1DfLShBSgXPztSdn2L3i Rj1g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8IvBub1y+mLxu1o8UXBPE0Lg78GSWOjlddcrwnvmFCE=; b=YzzizUGYclIMhPOj8EGfJE6Kej3l2dyYQncY9z65hUt7wPOfjsXEw/IFpKwli66Av9 qIFDwQ7CyJEt+tQE3O8M0Fi5+61kvVhxkMZ4M5pNefHyEM0oQ+ITsUto6dcxfMQZartt LYbDMMc7SpVy6H3rgiaW6WDNNBYIK7tThNrUv2TPjvAiVoldCN5pfdarPtfMTUzksW3R dTV0vEYf5+kcz205DXEb8Twy4dOFJ1FITpJAEYe1EygqQra5rjNIK4S2P2u4cUhe3xwS +ObnwB5nmrTwInunbSdEEIM1xJcrZKGhnYfImbs0yYblRg7Yzv+pN0aWFI/p5u+68iC/ DWgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110G5/q3Yxxoy9Yrq6o/qu+sh/FwwZmp7LlT4aIkCA2cMEF3r3jU pzdLWGFJeigkxEMA640+ROqOohVDxw==
X-Received: by 10.28.37.193 with SMTP id l184mr1778712wml.24.1500376030748; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.183.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.223.183.1 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Jul 2017 04:07:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170718094546.pcu4mx6ezxdo3k7c@mx4.yitter.info>
References: <27b1a6a1-5dfc-6403-1d24-3171f7dba74a@cisco.com> <20170718094546.pcu4mx6ezxdo3k7c@mx4.yitter.info>
From: Alia Atlas <akatlas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 07:07:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAG4d1rf6psU-zOST2CSpRAJ2k1efyX3Pt91PSSeJmYg=EUbEXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, iaoc@ietf.org, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e31f257a719055495846f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/213VZmxO3XFnNRXbW_CvqX5T7m8>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:07:15 -0000
When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on the order of 60 people in the past. I recall the Honolulu meeting being particularly problematic. Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on historical issues. I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute number of people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails. Regards, Alia On Jul 18, 2017 11:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: Hi, On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37:36AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote: > > o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are > > unlikely to impede attendance by an overwhelming majority of > > participants. > > > This wording seems to fail the "document running code" test, because it > is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people would have problems > getting to San Francisco. I agree. > However, it seems likely that a significant > number of people would, and that seems to me what we meant in the first > place. To avoid arguments over what "significant" means, I propose to > change the text to the following: > > o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are unlikely to > impede attendance by more than 5% of expected participants. I like the 5% (or some other number) being in the criterion. I feel uncomfortable with "significant" because my inner social science nerd immediately wants to start looking for 2 standard deviations, and I think that would create a shifting window over time related to changing immigration policies around the world. Of course, if it turns out that 5% of potential expected participants are always excluded in some possible future world where immigration restriction becomes the norm, that might mean we can never meet. For this case, are we reasonably sure that it would have been 60ish people? If not, that appears to tell us that 5% is the wrong value (unless we think it is an indication the IAOC is making a mistake, and I don't get the impression that we collectively feel that way but I'm not in a position to declare consensus). > It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate. I agree. This is a nice test, by the way, and I'm glad we have the opportunity to try this. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ Mtgvenue mailing list Mtgvenue@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
- [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Andrew Sullivan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Mirja Kühlewind
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Adam Roach
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Alia Atlas
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Bob Hinden
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Eliot Lear
- Re: [Mtgvenue] [IAOC] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [Mtgvenue] [IAOC] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-v… Pete Resnick