Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Suresh,

Non-blocking comments, and I'm sure you'll do the right thing. Just as
input for you doing the right thing :-) ...

On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 12:48 AM Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Spencer,
>   Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline.
>
> > On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: Yes
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> > introductory paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (Sorry, this is a resend. The only change is that I should have clicked
> on Yes,
> > instead of No Objection)
> >
> > Nice work. I know BCP process text is hard.
> >
> > I share Martin's question, at least to the point where I'm guessing what
> that
> > text means.
>
> I made a text proposal to Martin. Let me know if it works for you as well.
>

You're headed the right direction.


>
> >
> > 1-1-1-* is used in
> >
> > 1.  Introduction
> >
> >   The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group
> >   mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high
> >   bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues.  The IETF
> >   currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET] where
> >   the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America,
> >   Europe, and Asia.
> >
> > but defined in Section 2, following. I don't know whether it would be
> better to
> > say "meeting policy" or "meeting rotation policy", but 1-1-1-* probably
> isn't
> > universally understood without scanning down to Section 2.
>
> I think actually changing this to "1-1-1" might be better. Thoughts?
>

My point was that 1-1-1-* has been kind of a term of art, for people
talking about where we meet. The same is true of "1-1-1".

If someone hasn't been following those conversations, I'm not sure how
clear "1-1-1-*" is without the definition in Section 2. Even a forward
pointer would be an improvement.


> >
> > Are you just going to remove the prefix "BACKGROUND NOTE:"? This could
> be in
> > its own section, I guess, maybe in an appendix?
>
> I think removing it makes sense.
>
> >
> > In
> >
> >  While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
> >   participants, we need to recognize that due to the dynamic and
> >   evolving nature of participation, there may be significant changes to
> >   the regions that provide a major share of participants in the future.
> >
> > perhaps we should say "we recognize"? I'm hoping we've already done that
> :-)
>
> Sounds good.
>
> >
> > Is
> >
> >  NOTE: There have not been a large number of such exploratory meetings
> >   under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and
> >   IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances).
> >
> > saying
> >
> >  NOTE: There have not been a large number of meetings that would qualify
> >   as exploratory meetings
> >   under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and
> >   IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances).
> >
> > ? They weren't actually held under 1-1-1-*, which postdates IETF 27 and
> IETF 54
> > considerably …
>
> I think the word “such” is ambiguous in this context. I think your wording
> works well. I will make this change.
>
> >
> > Might
> >
> >  o  There were some logistical issues (venue availability, cost etc.).
> >
> > be clearer as
> >  o  There were some logistical issues (venue availability on previously
> >  committed dates, cost etc.).
>
> I think the dates is kind of understood. I don’t mind either way. Let me
> know if you feel strongly about this.
>

Not strongly, but my understanding was that the IAOC really did try harder
to find Asian venues than the results would lead you to think, and the
problem was that they found some venues that might have worked on other
dates, but we'd announced our committed dates like 2-3 years previously,
and didn't want to change them.

Spencer


> Thanks
> Suresh
>
>