Re: [Mtgvenue] Question on text about change of process

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 02 February 2017 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.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 EB89412958A for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:39:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.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 hrBTQ8vd2Obw for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDC8C129525 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v12Leaj2005194 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 2 Feb 2017 13:40:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1486071637; bh=LdmXhMGxdR5wfWPfgzlb03sbqu9awU9KbdeMGlLDIMw=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Reply-To:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ua1qWEW7OV7lqjcaDNRr+2/vvWnIucVoI9Na/hjjB9LaRsjJO35AOKLgrCSG8CiEC ezwQULOsruw2npCwDQ1yN9fjOi7kUdmcpgdU9BlQUrYdXiBw9/4FSiYifNBFk7+dj5 zwN846fQIHPhRJDbrC7+7bS5RzaubafGy7CU/w50=
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <afa22b35-c538-87ce-6d24-987e6ee1bc38@nomountain.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <13496fd9-8e01-031b-738e-e58197c4cf5d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 13:38:47 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <afa22b35-c538-87ce-6d24-987e6ee1bc38@nomountain.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/_9R-vRDmp6Zd9DwYMumslRcagL4>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Question on text about change of process
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 21:39:02 -0000

On 2/2/2017 11:55 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Jari proposed an addition:
>
>  While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it remains
>  the responsibility of the IAOC to apply their best judgment. The IAOC
>  accepts input and feedback both during the consultation process and
>  later (for instance when there are changes in the situation at a
>  chosen location). Any appeals remain subject to the provisions of
>  [RFC4071].
>
> Is there any objection to either of these additions?


The following is a modified version of what I posted earlier; it adds 
the 'consultation' sentence.  There are small differences from Jari's 
form of the text that might be worth considering.

      While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it 
remains the responsibility of the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  The 
IAOC accepts input and feedback both during the consultation process and 
later (for instance when there are changes in the situation at a chosen 
location). Any appeals are subject to the provisions of Section 3.5 
[RFC4071]. Individuals also can raise their concerns by providing input 
to the various IAOC member selection processes by the NOMCOM, IAB and 
IESG, as appropriate. [RFC4071]


Also, considering the substance of the text, I think it's placement in 
Section 1.2 Requirements Language is quite odd.  The new text is about 
appeals and feedback, not requirements.  That is, it's more about actors 
than meeting criteria.

Looking over the document, I think it makes more sense to put the text 
(with some obvious editorial tweaks to make it fit) at the end of:

      Section 4.7.  IAOC Meeting Committee


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net