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

["Leslie Daigle" <[e-mail]>]

A quick further point:   I think the bar is logically different if 
we’re looking at meetings that are close in (where disruption to the 
IETF budget and to individuals’ plans)  versus longer term planning (a 
year or more out).

Consider as separate cases:  Our meeting in Buenos Aires last year, had 
Zika been discovered in Argentina in February; this meeting that is 
(now) a year out.

Leslie.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

On 18 Jul 2017, at 9:16, Alissa Cooper wrote:

>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/18/17 11:59, Mirja Kühlewind wrote:
>>> So my understanding is actually that the venue was chanced because 
>>> of the uncertainty we currently have about the travel restrictions 
>>> that may occur in future. So I actually think it does not match the 
>>> bulletpoint on travel restrictions that is cited below.
>>>
>>> Also how do we know that 60 people or more will be effected (despite 
>>> the fact that we are taking about potential further changes that may 
>>> happen in future but did not happen yet).
>>
>> My understanding is that this was based on the 15% number that Leslie 
>> cited in her recent announcement:
>>
>>> 15% of those living outside the US who responded to the survey said 
>>> they were so concerned about US travel restrictions that they 
>>> decided not to attend IETF 98 in Chicago.
>>
>> Prediction is hard business; however, it's been pointed out to me 
>> that "tomorrow will be the same as today" is frequently as good a 
>> predictor for weather as an actual, well-sourced forecast.
>
> 15% of people who responded to the survey is not the same as 15% of 
> expected attendees. The survey gave us an indication of concerns in 
> the portion of the community who chose to respond to it.
>
> Also, this is a minor detail, but at the time when we may need to make 
> a venue change decision, we may not have an expected attendee number 
> for the relevant meeting. For example, we don’t presently have the 
> expected attendee number for IETF 102 because those numbers get 
> established as part of the 2018 budgeting process, which starts next 
> month. The estimates have been somewhat stable in consecutive years, 
> but that could change. So if people are wanting to be real strict 
> about this (e.g., thinking that 60 is different from 55), it might 
> involve having to generate the expected attendee number further in 
> advance than usual, or using a number from a previous year or 
> something.
>
> Alissa
>
>>
>> /a
>>