--On Friday, February 2, 2018 13:29 -0500 Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > Also wearing no hat. > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 12:51:38PM -0500, John C Klensin wrote: > >> criterion to a broadly-defined "world regions" one, I don't >> think that decision should sneak up on the community by virtue >> of what can (or cannot) be detected from reading between the >> lines of the I-D or inferred from what that document does not >> say. I don't think changes to the document are necessary but, >> unless the criteria are clear to, and agreed by, the >> community, I think there is a problem. > > I don't think it's sneaking up on anyone. > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-03 has been submitted to > the IESG for publication. That document literally calls out > the world regions, and gives the reasons why. It's been going > through our usual processes. How is this not "clear to, and > agreed by, the community"? This is how we make decisions > around here, I think, and the criteria are being decided in > keeping with those procedures. What's the problem? _That_ problem, which would be more than sufficient to justify an appeal, is that, normally, when someone says "this draft is ok because of a provision in some other draft", the IESG either insists that the two documents be processed at the same time or that there be a normative reference from that document being considered to the one that is still in process so that neither is published until both are ready and, if necessary, there is an opportunity to reopen the first-processed document if the other one does not come out as expected. > Now, of course, it is not _yet_ agreed by the community, since > it hasn't been published. But that is the problem that > MTGVENUE was set up to fix, and I don't think anyone said the > IETF should stop having or arranging meetings while that > working group laboured. No. As I tried to say, I have no particular problem with the choice of Bangkok given both where we have met before without major and obvious problems and an assumption of due diligence by all directly concerned. But, especially given that these are two documents in the same WG, if one is needed to explain the other and make it actionable, then both should be in Last Call at the same time. > Nevertheless, I think this is a good test case. We should > look at the Bangkok through the lens of whether all the > MTGVENUE processes have worked as expected. I am particularly > curious about whether the mandatory network critera are met > given some reports I've read of network requirements in > Thailand and the results > (e.g. > https://ooni.torproject.org/post/thailand-internet-censorship/ > ). However, those "open network" criteria have been around for years and years and, while the MTGVENUE drafts (IMO, quite properly) repeat and document those criteria, I don't see that they change anything in what we've been told is being practice. So, we can have the same question, only one that I expect to be part of due diligence under the existing rules (even if those rules are partially oral tradition) and you expect to conform to the MTGVENUE rules (even if those are not completely and formally approved). best, john