Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

So my understanding is actually that the venue was chanced because of the uncertainty we currently have about the travel restrictions that may occur in future. So I actually think it does not match the bulletpoint on travel restrictions that is cited below.

Also how do we know that 60 people or more will be effected (despite the fact that we are taking about potential further changes that may happen in future but did not happen yet).

Mirja

> Am 18.07.2017 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>:
> 
> 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