[Mtgvenue] Re: Venue selection, transparency, and the rate of change

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 28 March 2026 17:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@mail2.ietf.org
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@mail2.ietf.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED53D2E8FC1 for <mtgvenue@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1774717471; bh=K96dGs2NJY882GyuEqPzx+T0yEL17kF6qgQWAavV8co=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=QtJGzQmWFZHPoEOSBBrMmpLN2hfp/ghYAHgEV2Ajfd1K0BfPKGSThKsFu4XwBajDv x55o+DuYTP5Tp4bJxZX91rDx2feu05Vc3mZHdXmE2CO8VvaU7QLwMAn3m82He7aqR2 aW2zsxWqHNSDnnkTkxXQRwJf4UcaFdN9dfW7pzns=
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ietf.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: mail2.ietf.org (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail2.ietf.org ([166.84.6.31]) by localhost (mail2.ietf.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aCFDrRtkNlta for <mtgvenue@mail2.ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by mail2.ietf.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03D44D2E8F71 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.117.112.82]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 62SH47Ba009433 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:04:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1774717458; x=1774803858; i=@elandsys.com; bh=K96dGs2NJY882GyuEqPzx+T0yEL17kF6qgQWAavV8co=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=vx7ZsynE8h/Ei4HBSTqyZPdb1E2+sTj2csvF37A/wfyMmDwH3CvwmsQ3fIHBxBiwf uWrDTcwLy1eHR+HMlnczx7Mb96t68PXqdPMs8osQOHsB5m9ulzQh4yO+zakyonbTCI 3hud2OUYQabvdQNk+ZjpQzNTfUqYmiAQs2HQ/MLw=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20260328095937.112ab830@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2026 10:03:36 -0700
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMDdUhbLpb39b3gPXH3_qrHLmAKMCKF5P7o9x0VX-ySZzg@mail.g mail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMBMn8a+_N1ThfSmO4bqMqo+CQ6KnS1Q2Kp9+AciDb8HWg@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20260327180325.09e39ad8@elandnews.com> <CA+9kkMDdUhbLpb39b3gPXH3_qrHLmAKMCKF5P7o9x0VX-ySZzg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Message-ID-Hash: ULYCDGCLRY7EVVQJFDHOQFMUZVS3W2ZS
X-Message-ID-Hash: ULYCDGCLRY7EVVQJFDHOQFMUZVS3W2ZS
X-MailFrom: sm@elandsys.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-mtgvenue.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [Mtgvenue] Re: Venue selection, transparency, and the rate of change
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IETF meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/ZElmCo4Yo4HIVEdc1W97nxaI3jA>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:mtgvenue-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mtgvenue-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mtgvenue-leave@ietf.org>

At 08:56 AM 28-03-2026, Ted Hardie wrote:
>I think I was perhaps not clear enough.  The timing of the final 
>information was so late that even cancelling this and going 
>online-only was impractical, so I did not intend to suggest it ought 
>to have been cancelled.  I do suggest that if a venue is in a 
>territory where the rules are not public and/or which has a history 
>of late surprises, that this should be taken into account in 
>subsequent venue selection.  Even if this set of rules and this set 
>of changes were acceptable (and this is being debated on a different 
>thread), the simple fact that the LLC will not be able to know the 
>rules or judge the risk of changes is an important data point, 
>possibly even a critical one.

Your suggestion is the better idea on the table [1].  It's worth a try.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/on-the-table