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

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Wed, 06 June 2018 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.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 B3099130DEE; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 Cf3SShZF8Exa; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E8351292AD; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 13:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6648; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528316181; x=1529525781; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=KdTYQNwrjPTrASpUgfxIzGgsxGZG1dQ8URnAnb0VaxY=; b=WaLUToJCZm1y2arPN9rZDzRxb6l83+ol1DgvsxD5NlOJc3W3VfBkEtYt aVx+I5cP5uF4kXtQgTGeiOOiMYPKHilJbhqcDsWchvfk+CwcGvNmAE4gx ydrhf0CoPTNMypzhF2bV7XmWSILdYlbPhSgVYkyJydKmpIK/XUwyxRjfx s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CiAACwPxhb/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNDYn8oCoNuiASMZoFYIYgXjDsUgWQLI4RJAheCHiE0GAE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQEBAmwcDIUoAQEBAwEjEToLDAQCAQgRAwECAQICJgICAh8RFQgIAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?BDQWDIgKBZwMNCA+pYYIchwsNgSyBYwWBC4c3ghOBDyQMglyCT0ICAQIBgSk?= =?us-ascii?q?BEgEmMQKCRjGCJAKHSolihx4sCQKFa4V5gwKBPYN4h22KAUqGNgIREwGBJB0?= =?us-ascii?q?4YVgRCHAVZQGCGIJIiEiFPm8BjjKBH4EZAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,484,1520899200"; d="scan'208";a="406752671"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jun 2018 20:16:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (xch-aln-019.cisco.com [173.36.7.29]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w56KGJCG027963 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 Jun 2018 20:16:20 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) by XCH-ALN-019.cisco.com (173.36.7.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:16:19 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 6 Jun 2018 15:16:19 -0500
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
CC: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy@ietf.org>, "mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org" <mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org>, "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHT/RJ7PRYrQaDmcUy/3ZzS1kqSYKRTDYUAgAB9QwA=
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 20:16:19 +0000
Message-ID: <2DEDFA52-B8C2-4785-9933-D146886905C9@cisco.com>
References: <152823338873.19118.12210512458972748727.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <79BD0AE0-7173-4DD5-B76C-1A56A9EDCAD9@kaloom.com>
In-Reply-To: <79BD0AE0-7173-4DD5-B76C-1A56A9EDCAD9@kaloom.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.c.0.180410
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.20.182.35]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3494E4759E769C44B3BCAD258514F57B@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/73FN88-b_wmBZN3PpzudJALIJD4>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:16:26 -0000

Hi Suresh,

Please see one comment inline [cue]

-----Original Message-----
From: Suresh Krishnan <Suresh@kaloom.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 10:48 PM
To: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>rg>, "draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy@ietf.org>rg>, Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>om>, "mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org" <mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org>rg>, "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)

    Hi Spencer,
      Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline.
    
    > On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> 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.
    
    > 
    > 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?

[cue] The 1-1-1 policy is also defined in section 2, so I think "meeting rotation policy" or " meeting location distribution", as used in [IETFMEET], works better in the introduction. 

Cheers,
Charles
    
    > 
    > 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.
    
    Thanks
    Suresh