Re: [Mtgvenue] comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 30 January 2017 12:56 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1C09129436 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:56:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.656
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.656 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hQ4XRh-ncxx for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy8-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [67.222.33.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 889DE1293D8 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 04:56:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 21411 invoked by uid 0); 30 Jan 2017 12:56:03 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cmgw2) (10.0.90.83) by gproxy8.mail.unifiedlayer.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2017 12:56:03 -0000
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw2 with id ecvy1u00J2SSUrH01cw1yT; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:56:02 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=ZINExxLb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=IgFoBzBjUZAA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=w7uEI2gQHqakdrFQ3wgA:9 a=7Zwj6sZBwVKJAoWSPKxL6X1jA+E=:19 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:From:References:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=uKJ6YGla0HQb/n4oToH/sjoKu27RcZQNciX+KriM8sQ=; b=CC7Y42OoRYJblTnCAfdLvKkBiu HfMU2Sur6cJpKPxRTD2zg6NSiqIxwTAJgKKNPdu60Y8ix7th2FGyoziQATAGEqa1ZdwGfacnr1XUf xiUyke6DC1z5v/yTPj7WfW9OP;
Received: from pool-100-15-85-191.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.85.191]:38916 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1cYBV1-0004Ov-Ss; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 05:55:59 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <9139334c-9c5e-814d-4299-c6f5950039b8@cs.tcd.ie> <f9b2a33d-db49-54a0-a657-be58a08ff021@labn.net> <a1a08b89-9088-07e0-d878-2c171c04602b@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
Message-ID: <acc6e92e-954d-0dd5-47bf-d2ffb12756dc@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:55:57 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a1a08b89-9088-07e0-d878-2c171c04602b@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.85.191
X-Exim-ID: 1cYBV1-0004Ov-Ss
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-85-191.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.85.191]:38916
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 5
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/xU1Qk6VnikSvAtrWoZ-um9ERV7M>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:56:06 -0000

Stephen,


On 1/30/2017 7:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hiya,
>
> On 30/01/17 12:32, Lou Berger wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>>     Just focusing in on comments to section 5 (as I suspect the other
>> comments will receive sufficient attention by others):
>>
>>
>> On 1/29/2017 11:10 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> - section 5: this overall seems too prescriptive to me.  Do
>>> we really think we'll need to follow this process *exactly*
>>> in say 2027? I'd say making this all less prescriptive
>>> would be better.
>> I disagree -- Given the importance, visibility, impact, divisiveness,
>> etc of venue selection I think exactly this level of detail needs to be
>> agreed to by the community.  I do see your point that this section is
>> likely to need to be revisited more frequently than the rest of the
>> document and would support publishing it in its own document.  In fact
>> this section has been pretty stable and is probably ready for LC so such
>> a document could be rapidly split out and published.
> So how about emphasising more that this section is a guideline
> that's expected to evolve, that what's listed here is the
> current practice (assuming it is) and that the IAOC may change
> this but must publish their changes and follow community
> consensus on such changes (as evaluated by the IESG)? To be
> clear, I mean adding such text to the start of section 5,
> before 5.1.

WFM.

>
>>> - 5.3 & 5.5: the links aren't a good idea (and are access
>>> controlled which is unacceptable if not fixed).
>> Agreed this material can either be incorporated as an appendix.  Given
>> the current evolving situation the flow chart on contingency planning is
>> good info to have available to the community...
> So I still get a 401 when I click those links - has the material
> been published somewhere else that the WG could see? 
no - that's what I was agree too -- and saying it should be incorporated
within an appendix of the document.

> If not, I
> think that has to happen before one could think about WGLC.

I think we're on the same page here, i.e. links (accessible or
otherwise) are a bad idea...

Lou

> Cheer,
> S.
>
>
>> Lou
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue