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

There is one more point that may be very relevant to consider here.

Are we going to have an IETF meeting in a venue/country if the authorities disallow traveling with the laptops in hand-baggage?

I’m not sure if we considered this before, but I think it is clear now we MUST.

Regards,
Jordi

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Mtgvenue <mtgvenue-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Responder a: <lear@cisco.com>
Fecha: martes, 18 de julio de 2017, 11:37
Para: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>, IAOC <iaoc@ietf.org>
Asunto: [Mtgvenue] testing draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process against the venue change that just occurred

    Dear colleagues and IAOC members,

    The change of venue for IETF 102 provides us an opportunity to check
    whether or not draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process would
    represent appropriate running code.  That is- was there a criteria that
    became violated, and was the processed described in the draft  appropriate?

    To answer the first question we look to the following Important criteria:

    >    o  Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are
    >       unlikely to impede attendance by an overwhelming majority of
    >       participants.

    This wording seems to fail the "document running code" test, because it
    is unlikely that the overwhelming majority of people would have problems
    getting to San Francisco.  However, it seems likely that a significant
    number of people would, and that seems to me what we meant in the first
    place.  To avoid arguments over what "significant" means, I propose to
    change the text to the following:

    o Travel barriers to entry, including visa requirements, are unlikely to
    impede attendance by more than 5% of expected participants.

    To put this in perspective, and to demonstrate my multiplication skills;

    5% of 1200  = 60 people.

    If people prefer we could simply say "significant", and leave it ambiguous.

    Let's assume such a change were in place.  At that point, we have text
    in Section 5.5 that reads as follows:

    >    If at any time after a contract is signed the IAOC learns where a
    >    Venue's circumstances have significantly changed, such that the
    >    Important or Mandatory criteria can no longer be met, the IAOC MUST
    >    reconsider the selection.  A description of how reconsideration
    >    currently takes place is found in Appendix B.  The IAOC will gauge
    >    the cost of making a change against the ability of the IETF to
    >    conclude a successful meeting, and make a final determination based
    >    on their best judgment.  When there is enough time to do so, the IAOC
    >    is expected to consult the community about changes.

    It seems to me that this did indeed function as appropriate.

    Would others mind having a look at the text and test my conclusions and
    suggestions above?

    Eliot

    _______________________________________________
    Mtgvenue mailing list
    Mtgvenue@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.