Re: [Mtgvenue] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02.txt

[Benson Muite <[e-mail]>]

On 29/02/2024 20.06, Jay Daley wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> Please see the latest version of our I-D updating the meeting venue
> requirements.
> 
> Following feedback, we have made the following changes:
> 
> 1.  Instead of replacing all of RFC 8719, it now aims just to replace
> the process for agreeing an exploratory meeting for the reasons given in
> the I-D.  The text includes a number of safeguards in the proposed new
> process.
This is an improvement, thanks.  Rather than single out Europe, North
America and Asia, a split by timezones is more reasonable as there are
places in Europe, North America and Asia that would likely not get the
right makeup or enough attendees for a viable IETF meeting and so would
be considered exploratory locations.

Is there a way to give more objective criteria for ensuring that the
makeup and number of onsite attendees is sufficient for a viable IETF
meeting? For example if an IETF meeting typically has 1000 attendees,
than an exploratory location would be one in which less than 40% of the
expected participants and/or 400 of the expected participants have
attended an in person IETF meeting in the past 3 years.  This is still a
bit vague, but as locations are chosen in advance of booking, it seems
difficult to use something more specific.
> It is our hope that this is close enough to agreement now that we do not
> need a session at IETF 119 to discuss.  If anyone disagrees then please
> let us know.
> 
Hopefully can manage changes by email and pull requests if needed.