IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Mon, 07 November 2016 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 D55C41294A7 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:38:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=cjLS8SIW; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=JYTvlLFf
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 mTGb6laeOhGL for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1C71293F4 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:38:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FDA2096A; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:38:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 07 Nov 2016 12:38:00 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h=cc :content-type:date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=awoXTrNeywUqVcHQ/JvBKa3sCrA=; b=cjLS8S IW1aIiNR+hm0yQYDv4qUqtt26XtiG8InsisjAQRuBt2JRlIFxFA7kGGbKcqLADzh 4F3VTiwB9yEOl7Svi+wn5PEqIPwTYN/JEPXhKtgiu081zhr0Hv9C1y/96duBy+Qv 9LJuNgR59XU/mT3TY3cR0wuGwuSQW37cgUs5U=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=awoXTrNeywUqVc HQ/JvBKa3sCrA=; b=JYTvlLFfHQ6uDt370yhh4c+3k2+KTFF8ptFVspv1chKxCU 3ixhfbLwDrUjcM7cHfjXrKL8hl7NB+wkW7ZN6gH+5Z977XsqR+AiTAL4tY4EhlDv Ul3koVi5Ex0YSVrXD2r0T5li3l75GlKuR0+YfShXlD1VWiexTt3bf98fUX2uw=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:-LsgWFooG8tfpyZEdi8Qk5AjYq3KN-CzkVuQlETTyqBJ1ZzxTww-cw>
X-Sasl-enc: 1J7a43JJ83vyaSXgO6yuytYMNd/VK2MgTGPDLOkwLvpr 1478540280
Received: from sjc-alcoop-8816.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.241.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C4504F29D4; Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:37:59 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_69FABF78-095F-4D32-AD0C-7E2B03BAF823"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <75759926-6c8d-2a30-c4b2-facafab3df50@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 12:37:58 -0500
Message-Id: <112F2811-5033-44F6-9F75-C326B034DC0C@cooperw.in>
References: <E3C933A5-6141-437A-ABA9-CF881BC8149E@cooperw.in> <5261f1bf-7ba7-c4a9-6daa-6db0898f1d2b@dcrocker.net> <265D8B56-AC83-408C-A326-2C107902210B@cooperw.in> <75759926-6c8d-2a30-c4b2-facafab3df50@dcrocker.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/hFMJcvaGPagOT_AacE9cE8pw-p4>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 17:38:03 -0000

> On Nov 7, 2016, at 12:03 PM, Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/7/2016 8:50 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>>> > The suggested language strikes me as... onerous.
>>> >
>>> > Do we really want that as a consensus statement?
>> My understanding is that a significant number of venues we have used over the last several years have onerous entry regulations for Indian and/or Chinese nationals (and probably other nationalities as well, but those are the two largest IETF participant groups that I know of).
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> But that leaves a basic question:
> 
>     What /pragmatic/ language can be used to guide the venue selection process, in a manner that has some chance of being /reliably/ acceptable to the community?
> 

The text in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00#section-2.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00#section-2.1> provides more of a hard line, if that’s what you’re looking for.

> The current language lacks pragmatics, other than just acknowledging that our goals will (sometimes) fail.

Of course we will sometimes fail to meet our goals. The document already says there is no perfect venue, and since we’re an open organization if we’re going to meet in different countries there will be individuals who encounter onerous entry regulations. There is no avoiding it.

Alissa

> 
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email