Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer,
  Thanks for your comments. Please find responses inline.

> On Jun 5, 2018, at 5:16 PM, Spencer Dawkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: Yes
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Sorry, this is a resend. The only change is that I should have clicked on Yes,
> instead of No Objection)
> 
> Nice work. I know BCP process text is hard.
> 
> I share Martin's question, at least to the point where I'm guessing what that
> text means.

I made a text proposal to Martin. Let me know if it works for you as well.

> 
> 1-1-1-* is used in
> 
> 1.  Introduction
> 
>   The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group
>   mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high
>   bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues.  The IETF
>   currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET] where
>   the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America,
>   Europe, and Asia.
> 
> but defined in Section 2, following. I don't know whether it would be better to
> say "meeting policy" or "meeting rotation policy", but 1-1-1-* probably isn't
> universally understood without scanning down to Section 2.

I think actually changing this to "1-1-1" might be better. Thoughts?

> 
> Are you just going to remove the prefix "BACKGROUND NOTE:"? This could be in
> its own section, I guess, maybe in an appendix?

I think removing it makes sense.

> 
> In
> 
>  While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
>   participants, we need to recognize that due to the dynamic and
>   evolving nature of participation, there may be significant changes to
>   the regions that provide a major share of participants in the future.
> 
> perhaps we should say "we recognize"? I'm hoping we've already done that :-)

Sounds good.

> 
> Is
> 
>  NOTE: There have not been a large number of such exploratory meetings
>   under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and
>   IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances).
> 
> saying
> 
>  NOTE: There have not been a large number of meetings that would qualify
>   as exploratory meetings
>   under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and
>   IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances).
> 
> ? They weren't actually held under 1-1-1-*, which postdates IETF 27 and IETF 54
> considerably …

I think the word “such” is ambiguous in this context. I think your wording works well. I will make this change.

> 
> Might
> 
>  o  There were some logistical issues (venue availability, cost etc.).
> 
> be clearer as
>  o  There were some logistical issues (venue availability on previously
>  committed dates, cost etc.).

I think the dates is kind of understood. I don’t mind either way. Let me know if you feel strongly about this.

Thanks
Suresh