[Mtgvenue] (offlist) Final 'appeal' text and possible alternate placement

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Sun, 29 January 2017 19:24 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 9F35F129590 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:24:58 -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 nV1WKB8k2NNw for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:24:57 -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 5DC61129595 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:24:57 -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 v0TJQVTl003897 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:26:31 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1485717991; bh=3owh7zcNstIZSeS+dn/SmyZJlBhDOWnjEAev8N8ruGM=; h=From:Subject:To:Reply-To:Date:From; b=YIzrZCjxXqfhoT6y0mVgZ14I8uvIg8eOLjix9WmuqrG+oMTYk4YzkZecfRvrtmMWL WgmEu8WiLq/0drZDozAvNqbfPAy1b5zDNOobwgrB2qUI91bqRNQXPrdKzaQg2WQn4l Olb/BhiVaEQnf8u4WeSLiJJ3RbeE4ty6eUt8MbmU=
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Priority: 2 (High)
To: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <24b99bd1-852c-8a1b-25fc-20cfc70b709d@dcrocker.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:24:49 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/aZQIOuLl06V4qSrDNedga00wglA>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] (offlist) Final 'appeal' text and possible alternate placement
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: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:24:58 -0000

Folks,

G'day.

Two items...


1. Inclusiveness

 From the latest notes concerning text in:

 > 2.  Venue Selection Objectives
 >
 > 2.1.  Core Values
...
 >    Inclusiveness:


There appear to be /no changes/ required.



2. Concerning appeals/feedback:

 From the latest exchange I started to work on the precise text to tweak 
and use at the end of Section 1.2 and would propose:

      While this document uses these terms and these meanings, it 
remains the responsibility of the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  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]


However, 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

Placement there would produce:

> 4.4.  IETF Administrative Oversight Committee
>
>    The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has the
>    responsibility to oversee and select IETF meeting venues.  It
>    instructs the IAD to work with the Internet Society to write the
>    relevant contracts.  It approves the IETF meetings calendar.  In
>    cooperation with the IAD, the IAOC takes necessary actions to ensure
>    that it is aware of participant concerns about particular venues as
>    early in the process as is feasible.

      While the meeting selection process is directed by the 
requirements language of [Section 1.2], it remains the responsibility of 
the IAOC to apply its best judgment.  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]



Is this acceptable to folk?

d/


Link to current draft:

 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04#section-4

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net