[Mtgvenue] Closing on comments to section 5 (was: Re: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04)

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Fri, 10 March 2017 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 493031298D9 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.502 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 z-FqWco4LwDA for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy6-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.39.168]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 07D8B1298C5 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 04:34:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 16161 invoked by uid 0); 10 Mar 2017 12:34:49 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO CMOut01) (10.0.90.82) by gproxy6.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2017 12:34:49 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by CMOut01 with id uCam1u00J2SSUrH01Cap26; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:34:49 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=Ath9goNP c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=6Iz7jQTuP9IA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=bt8Zh30PAAAA:8 a=w7GGm-hOI7YQHA8EU00A:9 a=7Zwj6sZBwVKJAoWSPKxL6X1jA+E=:19 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=oiBpN-rYJXxenNlZAEox:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yeR2m85mYMmksjcfsSrld6Jd5NQlV1tMaheSGfkEAHo=; b=os3Nz5HDIZwqun1DLgciJb3ox9 4BYUk6lZooYHpqHOnLvk2+HtmVf9bgApc2/sY48HcIZx0iymNS6pDmteUqijC3xWEMVsYxgH9mSbP G/a1ZE+wP2K0jN6iRK0gviucH;
Received: from pool-100-15-85-191.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.85.191]:40816 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1cmJks-0000df-11; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:34:46 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <9139334c-9c5e-814d-4299-c6f5950039b8@cs.tcd.ie> <f9b2a33d-db49-54a0-a657-be58a08ff021@labn.net> <a1a08b89-9088-07e0-d878-2c171c04602b@cs.tcd.ie> <acc6e92e-954d-0dd5-47bf-d2ffb12756dc@labn.net>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <83c13799-43cd-5114-17f0-18f0a87e21fc@labn.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 07:34:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <acc6e92e-954d-0dd5-47bf-d2ffb12756dc@labn.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.85.191
X-Exim-ID: 1cmJks-0000df-11
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-85-191.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.85.191]:40816
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/Eno35zQce306Qdzl6vKdk3tEKVM>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] Closing on comments to section 5 (was: Re: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04)
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:34:51 -0000

Stephen,

To close the loop on this:

On 1/30/2017 7:55 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> 
> On 1/30/2017 7:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 30/01/17 12:32, Lou Berger wrote:
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>>     Just focusing in on comments to section 5 (as I suspect the other
>>> comments will receive sufficient attention by others):
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/29/2017 11:10 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>> - section 5: this overall seems too prescriptive to me.  Do
>>>> we really think we'll need to follow this process *exactly*
>>>> in say 2027? I'd say making this all less prescriptive
>>>> would be better.
>>> I disagree -- Given the importance, visibility, impact, divisiveness,
>>> etc of venue selection I think exactly this level of detail needs to be
>>> agreed to by the community.  I do see your point that this section is
>>> likely to need to be revisited more frequently than the rest of the
>>> document and would support publishing it in its own document.  In fact
>>> this section has been pretty stable and is probably ready for LC so such
>>> a document could be rapidly split out and published.
>> So how about emphasising more that this section is a guideline
>> that's expected to evolve, that what's listed here is the
>> current practice (assuming it is) and that the IAOC may change
>> this but must publish their changes and follow community
>> consensus on such changes (as evaluated by the IESG)? To be
>> clear, I mean adding such text to the start of section 5,
>> before 5.1.
> 
> WFM.
> 
The specific text I propose is:

         This section is intended to define current practice, as it
         should be today, but such guidelines will likely need to evolve
         over time.  The IAOC may change these guidelines when needed by
         publishing updated guidelines and following the normal IETF
         consensus process.

>>
>>>> - 5.3 & 5.5: the links aren't a good idea (and are access
>>>> controlled which is unacceptable if not fixed).
>>> Agreed this material can either be incorporated as an appendix.  Given
>>> the current evolving situation the flow chart on contingency planning is
>>> good info to have available to the community...
>> So I still get a 401 when I click those links - has the material
>> been published somewhere else that the WG could see? 
> no - that's what I was agree too -- and saying it should be incorporated
> within an appendix of the document.
> 
>> If not, I
>> think that has to happen before one could think about WGLC.
> 
> I think we're on the same page here, i.e. links (accessible or
> otherwise) are a bad idea...
> 

Done.
Here's a link to the formatted working version:
https://xml2rfc.tools.ietf.org/cgi-bin/xml2rfc.cgi?url=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/master/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process.xml&modeAsFormat=txt%2Fascii

Lou

> Lou
> 
>> Cheer,
>> S.
>>
>>
>>> Lou
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mtgvenue mailing list
>> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>