Hi Pekka, all, (commenting/replying to the remaining emails on this today) See my reply below in-line. Regards, Jordi > De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> > Responder a: <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> > Fecha: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 05:08:09 +0200 (EET) > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > CC: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx> > Asunto: Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria > > (just a late addition of a comment or two..) > > Others have already commented on a number of things -- if this goes forward, > the doc needs major editing. Below are my comments on those parts which I > think haven't been all that extensively discussed. > > .............. > > Regarding the sponsorship, the meetings are not directly rewarding as > a marketing action as it may be the case for other type of events, at > least not directly, because the IETF community is mainly compound by > engineers, not customers, but in any case is a rewarding action in > front of the community. This "low level" rewarding is also one more > reason to make sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly > disseminated, unless clearly authorized by the hosts, and even do, it > can be contra-productive for future meetings. > > ==> I'm not sure what this means, so remove or reword. Let me try with: Regarding the sponsorship, the meeting are not directly rewarding as a marketing action as it is usually the case for other events. The reason for this is that the IETF community is mainly engineers, which in general are not decision makers which may become customers. However, sponsoring IETF offers an important rewarding action from the perspective of the community contribution. As a consequence, this "lower level" rewarding is one more reason to make sure that not all the sponsorship details are openly disseminated, unless clearly authorized by the host, and even do, it can be contra-productive for future meetings. > > The rooms generally are hold in a 24 hours basis, and is highly > recommended the possibility to use them at any time w/o restrictions, > except for the required timing of the cleaning service. In certain > places this could be a cost issue and it may be not convenient. > > This may be the case when using conference facilities instead of > meeting rooms in hotels. In those cases, it may be necessary to > increase the security when there are too many entrances. Some > additional technical issues may also arise according to previous > experience, such as access to wiring closets, AV facilities, etc. > > Not having the rooms hold in a 24 hours basis could also be a problem > in case electrical or network cabling/equipment has been deployed in > the meeting rooms. > > ==> sometimes there seem to be requirements/guidance for NOC operations > (e.g. the last para) rather than site selection. I'd rather put the 24h > requirement in different words: while the rooms don't need to be available > 24h, removing and reinstalling the equipment, cabling etc shouldn't be > needed every evening and morning.. Ok. So let's make it: Generally the rooms do not need to be available in 24 hours basis, but removing and reinstalling cabling, access points, other equipment, etc., should not be required by the venue. > > 8. Venue Acceptance/Rejection Report > > Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue, > the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance > or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey. > > The on-site survey report will compare the selection criteria against > the proposal information and the actual on-site findings, describing > possible discrepancies or issues which may need further > considerations even if they aren't directly described as part of the > criteria set out-coming from this document. > > ==> so, IAD should survey all the proposed venues? Funded by whom? Could I > ask IAD to visit my backyard to check it out (I could offer a free > dinner too!)? It may or may not make sense to say that if there are > multiple strong candidates (based on information received), a survey of > appropriate selection of them could be useful. I see your point, I think the idea is to visit the "strong candidates". Remember that the visit is not only for "next IETF", but is useful to define venues for future meetings, so I think this should be part of the IAD attributions to decide if visiting one or more, and if all are visited at the same time or considered for the same meeting or future meetings. Let's make it: Despite the information provided by the proponent of a given venue, the IAD should, before taking a final decision about the acceptance or rejection of a given proposed venue, make an on-site survey for those that seem to pass the criteria defined in this document. > > In order to demonstrate the compliance with the IETF meeting venue > selection criteria, all the information related to the proposal of a > site will be made publicly available in the IETF web site, > considering the negotiation confidential issues which could be > subjected to the sponsor/hosts decision. > > A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the > site being finally selected or not, and should include all the > options, such as a given city and several venues in the same city, > and so on. > > This will not only help the openness of the process but also as > collective knowledge helping into a better organization and solution > of issues for future meetings. > > ==> I'm not sure this level of detail is useful, and indeed, I don't think > any sponsored venue proposal would like to have this kind of info public > if the venue didn't get selected. I think the point here is to make it possible to publish the information in an anonymous way. I think it was said already in one of my previous emails, but will review it. I mean, all this information is quite useful for the community and for future candidates to hosting IETF, but we don't need to say the location, neither the proponent, neither other details that disclose what is not really relevant. So we can write down something such as: A summary of the information need to be made public regardless of the site being finally selected or not. If agreed by the proponent, it could be very complete, including all the options being considered, such as a given city and several venues in the same city, and so on. Alternatively, it can be made available not citing the city, but instead making clear the reasons why it has not been selected, in order to help future proponents to foresee similar issues. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf ************************************ The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit Information available at: http://www.ipv6-es.com 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. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf