IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: IETF-Announce <email@example.com> Cc: The IESG <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Protocol Action: 'IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16.txt) The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process' (draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16.txt) as Best Current Practice This document is the product of the Meeting Venue Working Group. The IESG contact person is Alissa Cooper. A URL of this Internet Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/
Technical Summary The purpose of this document is to guide the IASA in their selection of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels when arranging IETF plenary meeting venue selection. The IASA applies this guidance at different points in the process in an attempt to faithfully meet the requirements of the IETF community. We specify a set of general criteria for venue selection and several requirements for transparency and community consultation. Working Group Summary Two things of note: 1) There was a good deal of disagreement about the general format of the document and its purpose at the time the current chairs were appointed. In particular, it was difficult to figure out what different people meant by "mandatory" and "important". In the end, rough consensus seemed to be that "mandatory" items were those that could not be disregarded by IASA without coming back to the community and get a new consensus on the failure to meet the criteria, while "important" items were those that IASA could exercise it's judgment, and simply report to the community if any were not met. In the end, only three items were considered "mandatory". 2) Several people made direct and significant textual contributions to the document. They are now noted in the "Contributors" section, as per current procedure. However, this is obviously not ideal, since those people are not included in the citation index or on the cover page of the document. On the other hand, having all of those people on the front page is unwieldy, and having them all responsible to reply to the AUTH48 is undesirable. This is something that the IESG should work out. Document Quality The secretariat (and in particular, the meeting arranger) did a solicited review of the document, and all comments were addressed in the document. The secretariat also did a review of how previous meetings would or would not have conformed to the criteria in the document, and the WG found the results to be satisfactory. Personnel Pete Resnick is the shepherd. Alissa Cooper is the responsible AD.
RFC Editor Note "IASA" should be expanded on first use in the abstract. This document together with draft-mtgvenue-meeting-policy would logically form one new BCP I think.