Re: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Alia,

> On Jul 18, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Alia Atlas <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> When I had heard about, I believe that visa issues have impacted on the order of 60 people in the past.  I recall the Honolulu meeting being particularly problematic.
> 
> Before setting a threshold such as 5%, we should be clearer on historical issues.  I'd also prefer a mixture of percentage & absolute number of people minimum as a sanity-check/safety-rails.

I support the move to Montreal, but it’s going to always be a judgement call because it is based on what the visa situation will be in the future.  Picking numbers is just a guess.  Even in the best of times, getting visas can vary based on events we can’t predict.

I think a better criteria is think about reducing the risk of a disruption of a meeting.  If it appears that the visa policy of a country reduces the likelihood of a successful meeting, then the IAOC should consider moving it.

Bob



> 
> Regards,
> Alia
> 
> On Jul 18, 2017 11:46 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:37:36AM +0200, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> > >    o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are
> > >       unlikely to impede attendance by an overwhelming majority of
> > >       participants.
> >
> >
> > This wording seems to fail the "document running code" test, because it
> > is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people would have problems
> > getting to San Francisco.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> > However, it seems likely that a significant
> > number of people would, and that seems to me what we meant in the first
> > place.  To avoid arguments over what "significant" means, I propose to
> > change the text to the following:
> >
> > o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are unlikely to
> > impede attendance by more than 5% of expected participants.
> 
> I like the 5% (or some other number) being in the criterion.  I feel
> uncomfortable with "significant" because my inner social science nerd
> immediately wants to start looking for 2 standard deviations, and I
> think that would create a shifting window over time related to
> changing immigration policies around the world.  Of course, if it
> turns out that 5% of potential expected participants are always
> excluded in some possible future world where immigration restriction
> becomes the norm, that might mean we can never meet.
> 
> 
> For this case, are we reasonably sure that it would have been 60ish
> people?  If not, that appears to tell us that 5% is the wrong value
> (unless we think it is an indication the IAOC is making a mistake, and
> I don't get the impression that we collectively feel that way but I'm
> not in a position to declare consensus).
> 
> > It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> This is a nice test, by the way, and I'm glad we have the opportunity
> to try this.
> 
> A
> 
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> [e-mail]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue