[Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)
Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 05 June 2018 21:16 UTC
Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B51AD131190; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Spencer Dawkins <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy@ietf.org, Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>, mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org, eckelcu@cisco.com, mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.81.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152823338873.19118.12210512458972748727.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:16:28 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/ufuW5BHPPIR-5by6RnFw7QrEK94>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Tue, 05 Jun 2018 21:16:37 -0000
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. 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. Are you just going to remove the prefix "BACKGROUND NOTE:"? This could be in its own section, I guess, maybe in an appendix? 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 :-) 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 … 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.). ?
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf… Charles Eckel (eckelcu)
- [Mtgvenue] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-mtg… Spencer Dawkins