Re: [Mtgvenue] document status, the role of the iaoc, and enforceability

Eliot,

On 1/6/2017 11:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IETF leadership tends to use BCPs as a means of enforcement.  That can't
> be the case with this document.  It simply is impracticable to rework
> contracts based on some sort of appeal, for instance.  At best,
> therefore, this is the IETF community's advice to the IAOC about how it
> would like venues selected.  At the end of the day, if members of the
> community are unhappy with the IAOC's venue selections, the appropriate
> recourse is the NOMCOM and not some sort of appeal.  I would like this
> further clarified in the document.

I'm not sure how viable this is for a specific meeting, but that's not
to say that there can't be some longer term/process impact via the
nomcom path.

I have a little experience with trying this path.  The announcement of
the 2016 venues was the straw that made me volunteer for the IAOC and I
got appointed ~2 years ago.  Even then it was too late for me to have
any impact on changing Singapore as a venue (my objections were based on
expense and IETF 100 relevance, not the objection which I was unaware of
that was raised by the community) .

That said, I do believe I've been able to have some impact on meeting
selection as an IAOC member -- specifically promoting the idea of repeat
locations for cost benefits, (somewhat) improving transparency, and
initiating the draft with the personal objective of ensuring that the
venue selection process follows a community driven/consensus process.

Also, keep in mind that the IAOC is made up of mostly non-nomcom
appointed members.

Lou

> Eliot
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue