[Mtgvenue] resolution of IESG comments for draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Here are the edits that I have tallied, based on IESG comments.  Barring
objections, I will issue a new draft in a day or so.

From Spencer:

Move reference to end; slight grammatical cleanup to match:

OLD:

>       We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
>       limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
>       are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks -- including
>       a specific type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF" [RFC6771]
>       - or in side meetings.  Environments that are noisy or distracting
>       prevent that or reduce its effectiveness, and are therefore less
>       desirable as a meeting Facility.

NEW:

>       We meet to have focused technical discussions.  These are not
>       limited to scheduled breakout sessions, although of course those
>       are important.  They also happen over meals or drinks, a specific
>       type of non-session that we call a "Bar BOF", or in side meetings.
>       Environments that are noisy or distracting prevent that or reduce
>       its effectiveness, and are therefore less desirable as a meeting
>       Facility.[RFC6771]


From Ben Kaduk:


Section 3.3, sentence fix:

OLD:

>    o  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels provide reasonable, reliable,
>       unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
>       this service is included in the cost of the room.


NEW:

>    o  It is desirable for Overflow Hotels to  provide reasonable,
> reliable,
>       unfiltered Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
>       and that this service be included in the cost of the room.


Section 4:

> Section 4
>
>    Therefore, the IASA SHALL publicly document and keep
>    current both a list of roles and responsibilities relating to IETF
>    meetings, as well as the selection processes they use in order to
>    fulfill the requirements of the community.
>
> Are the first two (roles and responsibilities)
> qualitatively different from the process used, in terms of
> visibility requirements?  It may make sense to just list all three
> together, without an "as well as".


I propose no change, for fear of it becoming substantial, and the text
is not that bad.


> Section 7
>
>    The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
>    limited protections that attendees can apply.
>
> This reads oddly to me -- we provide for limited
> privacy protections that attendees can choose to apply but are not
> universally applied without explicit action?  What are they?
> The text would read more naturally to me as "to provide for some
> limited protections that apply to attendees", though that does of
> course have a different meaning.


I propose the following:


> 7.  Privacy Considerations
>
>    Different places have different constraints on individual privacy.
>    The requirements in this memo are intended to provide for some
>    limited protections. 


Adam's comments:

Abstract:

> I'm having a really hard time parsing this sentence. It seems to make sense if you remove "around".


Indeed.

> §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.


I propose to remove this reference, as we do not require it to be
maintained in any way, and Jim warned us that it was out of date.


Ben Campbell's comments:

> §3.2.3 and §3.3: The first section says that the cost of "open and unfiltered
> internet" in public spaces and guest rooms in "typically" included in the room
> price. But the latter simply says they are included.  Is that the intenti? It
> seems odd for the overflow hotels to be held to a higher standard than the
> meeting hotel.

I propose the following edit in accordance with the previous (note this
is a slightly stronger statement, but not out of line with existing
practice):

OLD:

>    o  The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
>       the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and
>       unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms;
>       this service is typically included in the cost of the room.

NEW:

>    o  The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit and facilitate,
>       the delivery of a high performance, robust, unfiltered and
>       unmodified Internet service for the public areas and guest rooms,
>       and that this service be included in the cost of the room.

> §1, 2nd paragraph: " the IASA to apply their " - Plural disagreement. (It looks
> like a mix of the US English tendency to treat organizations as singular
> entities and the British English tendency to treat them as plural collectives ).

Corrected to "its".


> §7: The last sentence seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph; I
> suggest a separate paragraph.

Ok.


Martin's comment:

> please forgive me for raising the following point, especially because I haven't
> participated in nor followed the discussions on that draft, but I would much
> prefer if "ethnicity" was used instead of "race".

Term "ethnicity" added.

Alexey's comment:

> I am wondering what is the relationship between the section "2.1.  Core Values"
> and Section 3? I don't think all of core values are expressed as requirements.
> Is section 2 (and 2.1) Informative?
The document already uses appropriate normative language.

Alvaro's comments:

Regarding "participants", s/IETF participants/participants/.  More than
that seems more than editorial.

Correction of "?" to ":"

Regarding the grouping of the BCP, I leave that to the IESG.

Eliot