Thanks for putting this document together. I have two minor comments. First, in Section 2 the document says: Please note that the boundaries between those regions has been purposefully left undefined per WG consensus. As a BCP, I think it would be more valuable to simply say: The boundaries between regions is purposefully left ambiguous. Second, at the end of Section 2, the document says: How often we intend to do such meetings in the future should also be an open topic for discussion within the community. I think the document should nail down who makes this decision. I suggest: The timing and frequency of such exploratory meetings in the future is left to the IETF Chair, after discussion with the IESG and the community. Russ > On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:12 PM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from the Meeting Venue WG (mtgvenue) to > consider the following document: - 'High level guidance for the meeting > policy of the IETF' > <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> as Best Current Practice > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final > comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2018-04-19. Exceptionally, comments may be > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of > the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > Abstract > > > This document describes a proposed meeting location policy for the > IETF and the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy. > > > > > The file can be obtained via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/ > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy/ballot/ > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > >
