Re: [Mtgvenue] New Version Notification for draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02.txt

[Benson Muite <[e-mail]>]

On 02/03/2024 17.27, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 9:58 PM Benson Muite <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     >
>     > I think this is a good illustration of why it's difficult to come up
>     > with a complete
>     > set of objective criteria about the suitability of a specific venue.
>     > Rather, I think
>     > the right way to proceed is by having a smaller set of screening
>     criteria
>     > (as the current document does) and then asking whether a proposed new
>     > venue is problematic for a large enough [0] fraction of attendees, for
>     > whatever
>     > reason, without interrogating the validity of those reasons.
>     >
>     This seems a reasonable way to give a meeting exploratory status. 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean ehre.
It would be good to separate the rotation policy from determining
whether a meeting is exploratory.

If a meeting location will be more problematic than usual for a
significant number of attendees, then it is reasonable to classify the
meeting as exploratory.  This could be left to IESG to determine with
community input.
> 
> I don't think we should have even exploratory meetings in locations
> that are significantly more problematic for current attendees.
> 
>  
> 
>     New
>     venues may also lead to greater engagement, for example Hyderabad or
>     Shenzhen would likely be successful new meeting venues for growing the
>     number of active participants.
> 
> 
> My understanding of the data is that previous exploratory meetings in areas
> where there was believed to be low engagement did not in fact meaningfully
> grow the number of new participants beyond that one meeting..
> Do you have evidence to the contrary?
> 
> 
>  
> 
>     > With that said, I agree with John that time zone is not a good
>     replacement
>     > for our existing geographic zone system. I could imagine a new
>     criterion
>     > based on travel time, but I don't think time zone is a good choice
>     for the
>     > reasons John indicated.
> 
>     Travel time may be difficult, other than being close to a major airport.
>      The aim of using time zones to split the globe is to have a more
>     precise and equitable criteria for distribution of meetings than North
>     America, Europe and Asia.
> 
> 
> I understand that that's your view, but it's not clear to me that time zones
> are in fact more equitable.
Travel time is tricky.  If all attendees add their closest departure
airport to the data tracker, one could create a program to calculate
minimum travel time for a certain fare level.  Some attendees also face
visa issues, which may be difficult to factor into travel time.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
>     >
>     > -Ekr
>     >
>     > [0] Where "large enough" is defined as "significantly more than
>     for the
>     > existing
>     > venues"
>     >
>