Re: [Mtgvenue] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: (with COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

Hi Adam,

See my reply to Spencer regarding IASA 2.0 for some more details. As 
Eliot said, the current edit was an attempt to take that into account, 
which we worked out with our AD. Perhaps something to discuss on the 
telechat.

I'll be sure we cover the two editorial bits. Thanks for those.

pr

On 5 Jun 2018, at 23:06, Adam Roach wrote:

> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15: 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-iaoc-venue-selection-process/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks to everyone who worked on this document.
>
> I agree with Spencer's concern that this document is tightly tied to 
> the current
> IASA structure, which is under revision at the moment. I think it 
> would be an
> improvement to describe, in more general terms, the entity responsible 
> for
> selecting venues, with a single note early in the document that the 
> entity
> currently in that role is the IASA.
>
> I also have a handful of editorial nits that the authors may wish to 
> address.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Please expand "IASA" in the Abstract, assuming it remains in the 
> Abstract.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Abstract:
>
>>  It directs the IASA to make available additional process
>>  documents around that describe the current meeting selection 
>> process.
>
> I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. It seems to make 
> sense if
> you remove "around".
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> §2.1:
>
>>     criteria below, one mandatory and others important, to allow for
>>     the case where local laws may require filtering in some
>>     circumstances.[MeetingNet]
>
> It's not clear what "[MeetingNet]" is doing here. Perhaps some 
> explanatory text
> about what the reader can expect to find at that reference would be 
> useful.
>
> In any case, consider putting a space before the opening bracket.