Skip to main content

Minutes IETF97: mtgvenue
minutes-97-mtgvenue-00

Meeting Minutes Meeting Venue (mtgvenue) WG
Date and time 2016-11-17 00:30
Title Minutes IETF97: mtgvenue
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2017-01-02

minutes-97-mtgvenue-00
Mtgvenue, Thursday Nov 17, 2016, 9:30-11:00
Chairs: Melinda Shore, Jonne Soininen
Agenda, no comments.
Discussion on policies and processes, not on evaluation of past venues

1) IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
(draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02): Objective: Find a way
forward with the draft (The draft has had some discussion on the mailing list.
Quite some open points remain and some of them clearly merit more discussion)
        Status
        Open issues
        Discussion on resolving the open issues and finding the way forward

Dave Crocker presenting
Recent issues
-       Revised text on food
-       Political considerations
-       Primary hotel w/reserved 1/3 of projected rooms
-       Why do we meet
Smallish change proposed
-       Unfiltered network access
Fairly stable text in the draft
-       Accessibility

Good to have, not a functional requirement. Cannot just follow US rules (ADA)
or any other one nation rule. “Follow local laws” is to remind we are subject
to local laws, not US, Swiss, etc. Is it “desired” only? Should it be
“mandatory”?

Alissa Cooper: maybe we can look around what other organisations have done?
Barry Leiba: Some other organisations have venue selection folks deciding, not
a community decision. Dave: useful guidance needed for venue selection staff.
Lou Berger: Found a good reference and put it into the doc. Alissa: Last time
we had Motoko Aizawa talking about human rights, we can ask her. Lou: there are
a lot of experts we can go and ask. But do we want to pay for that guidance?
Andrew Sullivan: This is part of larger problem: mandatory vs desired. This is
mixed up in the discussion. Mary Barnes: Let the people know ahead of time of
the limitations. We cannot get it perfect. Lou: We do not have control over
that document Andrew Dolganow: Be careful what you put in the guidelines. We
should put in free access to internet, privacy. These need to be
provided/guaranteed. Dave: This was discussed in the mailing list. If the text
is not good as it is, please provide alternative. Jason Livingood: If
“accessible” means “wheel chair accessible”, say so. Trying to get it perfect
does not work. We can evolve the document over time. Mary Barnes: This doc is
better than nothing at all, good starting point. These are the things that are
desirable. John Levin: Multiple accessibility criteria. Make it quite simple
here, think about what the attendance would need. Dave: two bullets: meeting
facility and hotel have good wheel chair access, mandatory. Additional
accessibility is desired. Lou Berger: Fully support that. Andrew Dolganow: Why
not say we will every now and then ask community of the need to amend the
criteria, to keep the doc up to date.

“Food text”
Seems to be consensus to add the third mandatory bullet (dietary and religion
related). Hum confirmed.

Mandatory etc categories
Dave: current doc has structure not well understood by Dave. Currently four
labels, why not go for mandatory/desirable. Dave landed somewhere in between.
It is not binary, but there are shades, therefore three categories. Bob Hinden:
Four categories is too many, three is better, not exactly sure what the labels
should be. NN: Too much time spent on wordsmithing. This is guidance to IAOC.
Do not overdo it. Dave: that approach go us to Singapore, and to this meeting
group. Andrew Dolganow: Maybe we need to define how many of the tradeoffs need
to be satisfied. Andrew Sullivan: Like to frame this differently. Have put a
revision on an ancestor of the current doc. What you always do is decide
between a bunch of trades. Categories here are sufficiently bad so that
community will argue the categories, and if they are applied correctly. Not
possible to get the categories right, don’t like the approach. Jason Livingood:
Agree this is difficult with categories. Let the people that have to decide to
work on number of aspects and decide based on their best knowledge. Barry
Leiba: Response to Glen: agree we do not want to make a computer program of
this. Disagree with Andrew that there are no categories and that all should be
trades. There are some mandatory. Listing trades and letting the team to work
on those. Leslie Daigle: Not going to develop an algorithm. We have some
running code to choose venue, as is shown in IETF101 (London Metropole). What
do we do when things change during the 3 years of deciding and getting to
venue? Jonne Soininen: Originally we wanted to put in some text discussing
that. In the last meeting there was discussion if need to cancel a meeting
altogether for such reasons. We need to come back on what text should go into
the doc on that. Dave: Document describing sequence of venues has a 3 month
check point, there may be some base for such text. Leslie: This doc may not
have to deal with that, maybe better to take it somewhere else. Alissa: This is
not about right or wrong. This is about making decisions justifiable. When in
future IAOC makes a decision that is challenged, IAOC can refer to the guidance
they have followed. The text today does not offer that. Maybe we can get the
ambiguity little less in the doc. Maybe achievable through the categories.
Currently there are some that are not functional, and we should do away with
those. Barry Leiba: Hope Alissa did not mean as strongly as I heard it. This is
not about justifying, this is about community giving guidance. Tobias Gondrom:
If you say something is mandatory, it means binary choice. If you do not want
this to be code, do not put mandatory. Think carefully what is mandatory. Mary
Barnes: Support Alissa’s point. Keeping things simple is good. Initially the
doc was confusing, getting better. Niels ten Oever: Like to echo what Alissa
said. We cannot hard code these things. We cannot say what we can encounter. We
document how we got to taking these things into account.

Dave: Let’s try to resolve
Decide on number of labels. Suggestion is 3: mandatory/tradeoff/nice to have
Lou Berger: Why not use Shall/should/may
(room: nah)
Dave: like the room reaction
Jim: It is likely hospitality community will read the doc, shall/should/may
does not mean the same to them as to us. Dave: hum on using shall/should/may:
not even close to rough consensus Dave: wanted to have words that have key
semantics Jonne Soininen: do not think it helps if we go through vocabulary.
Let’s decide on number of labels first. NN: Don’t like “nice”. Dave: let’s
decide first on number of labels: 4,3,2,or 1 Alissa: 5 categories and in order.
If conflict, higher category determines. Dave: My perception of how the process
works does not match Andrews description. Mandatory is small number, tradeoffs
are difficult, or real easy. We need an algorithm for tradeoff category,
because mandatory and nice do not play a role. Jari Arkko: Should we get a view
from people who make decisionsn on venues. Dan York: We seem to be doing
engineering work. Has anyone done survey on what kind of language hospitability
people use? A person from staff: 2 labels would be good: Mandatory and desired.
Dave: Like 3, because that takes into account the community, and we are able to
communicate to community on what the decision is based on. Lou Berger: Support
three. “Nice” is the collection on those aspects not falling on decision
making. Shows we have not forgotten stuff. Glenn Deen: Keep it simple, what
community looks for from a venue, likes the 3 categories. Jim Martin: (on
meetings comm, individual now): List the things that are important and give
that as guidance. Not to make it complicated, not to make it overly long. Dave:
The danger of getting it wrong, the danger of consulting community
continuously. NN: Remember with whom you are negotiation with. Hotel, country
(for entry to the country). They lead to different guidance.

Jonne Soininen: We’ll have a hum on number of categories: 4,3,2, or 1.
4 categories: no one hum
3 categories and ranking order (1) got the most support.

Bob Hinden: These two are not mutually exclusive. You can do rank order within
one of the categories. Jonne Soininen: Hume between 3 categories vs. ranking
order. Cannot decide. Barry Leiba: Do not try to resolve now, need to live with
objections, neither side will give up. Lu Berger: It is necessary to document
the mandatory, regardless of which one is chosen. Dave: Don’t believe we can
decide here. Objection with rank order: it is very difficult and need really
good rules to handle the process. Jari Arkko: Liked Alissa’s and Andrew’s doc.
There are few things we need to get right. It is not necessarily only about how
you label things. There are other things we need to solve as well. Glenn Deen:
Go to current draft and pull out mandatory, tradeoff. It may help people with
understanding where we are, and help them in deciding. Further discussion on
categories vs ranking order. The conclusion is that the proposal needs to be
written down so that people can evaluate and discuss it.

Bob Hinden: It is difficult to read the document and the updates now, could we
do single document review? Dave: Implementing change process. -03 will be
released. Going forward requesting change, have to come up with the specific
change proposal. Lou: This is important. It is not possible for the editor to
decide based on email discussion what community agrees. Lou Berger: Open issue:
balancing between giving community direction vs. specifying how professions do
their job, i.e. what the community wants done vs. how it is done.

2) Policy vs process
Objective: Understand the next steps for updating the policy document
(draft-krishnan-ietf-meeting-policy-01): (Policy draft has had no discussion on
the mailing list. In addition, there seems to be confusion about the split
between the policy and the process documents) Suresh Krishnan: presenting. No
comments since last meeting. Do we need separate policy document or merge all
in one? Jonne Soininen: Group charter talks of two documents. Barry Leiba:
Should be just one doc. Andrew: Opposite view. No comments as it is ready. LC
and ship it. Barry: ok Dave Crocker: Would support one doc only. Jari Arkko: AD
of the group, group can decide which way to go. As individual: sees value in
modular documents, let’s move this document forward. The two documents have
different scope. Tobias: Let’s get this out. A question. What if there is a
situation, that sometime we cannot follow 1-1-1 policy? Shuresh: there is some
discussion in policy doc, level out e.g. within 2 years. Barry: How about ship
this out and later merge. Lou: Why is this a goal, to have one doc only? Suresh
Krishnan: want to keep the documents separate. Jonne Soininen: Hum to make the
policy document a wg document. Consensus.

Adjourned.