Re: [Mtgvenue] New Version Notification for draft-daley-gendispatch-venue-requirements-02.txt

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 3, 2024 at 12:03 AM Benson Muite <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 02/03/2024 17.27, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 9:58 PM Benson Muite <[e-mail]
> > <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >     >
> >     > I think this is a good illustration of why it's difficult to come
> up
> >     > with a complete
> >     > set of objective criteria about the suitability of a specific
> venue.
> >     > Rather, I think
> >     > the right way to proceed is by having a smaller set of screening
> >     criteria
> >     > (as the current document does) and then asking whether a proposed
> new
> >     > venue is problematic for a large enough [0] fraction of attendees,
> for
> >     > whatever
> >     > reason, without interrogating the validity of those reasons.
> >     >
> >     This seems a reasonable way to give a meeting exploratory status.
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean ehre.
> It would be good to separate the rotation policy from determining
> whether a meeting is exploratory.
>

No, I don't think this is necessaarily right. For instance, I think we
should count
an exploratory meeting in a North American city we've never been to before
against the North American tranche of 1-1-1.


If a meeting location will be more problematic than usual for a
> significant number of attendees, then it is reasonable to classify the
> meeting as exploratory.  This could be left to IESG to determine with
> community input.
>

As I said in the message you are responding to, I just don't think
we should meet in places that are significantly more problematic
at all. I don't think we need an exploratory meeting to determine
that.



> >     > With that said, I agree with John that time zone is not a good
> >     replacement
> >     > for our existing geographic zone system. I could imagine a new
> >     criterion
> >     > based on travel time, but I don't think time zone is a good choice
> >     for the
> >     > reasons John indicated.
> >
> >     Travel time may be difficult, other than being close to a major
> airport.
> >      The aim of using time zones to split the globe is to have a more
> >     precise and equitable criteria for distribution of meetings than
> North
> >     America, Europe and Asia.
> >
> >
> > I understand that that's your view, but it's not clear to me that time
> zones
> > are in fact more equitable.
> Travel time is tricky.  If all attendees add their closest departure
> airport to the data tracker, one could create a program to calculate
> minimum travel time for a certain fare level.  Some attendees also face
> visa issues, which may be difficult to factor into travel time.
>

This doesn't seem like a good argument that time zones are more
equitable. Being easy to compute isn't the same as equitable.

-Ekr