Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: HR-RT Review of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process

["Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <Glenn.Deen@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Commenting on Brian’s response to my comments and to Eliot’s response to Brian.

On Apr 21, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

IMHO the way to read Section 3.3 is precisely to list aspirational requirements.  That having been said, a reality check: my guess is that AMSL and others will have a hard enough time evaluating against the previous sections.  3.3 probably needs to be viewed in two lights:

• A bonus.  You get it when you get it, but you don't cry when you don't.
• Something the Secretariat should track.

IMHO I disagree, what currently is in 3.3 is not aspiration, the items are obtainable in many venues we already use.  The items are in 3.3 not because they are not obtainable, they are there because the WG did not find consensus to make either critical (3.1) or important (3.2).

Items that are desirable, but not critical or important are not the same as aspirational. 

Remember the sole purpose of section 3 is to vet and measure venues against one another from the IETF needs for successful meetings. It is meant not to advocate to venues.  In practice the list won’t even likely be seen by anyone in a venue.  

If we change it to be a list of aspirations the list would very quickly swell to a very large list of proposals from the community, which I will not even cite examples of so as not to encourage even more proposals to it, and the results of the list would be mostly unmet.   A long list where most of the items on the list are commonly unmet is not useful in evaluating venues.  

If we have a desire as a community to create statements to venues on what we would like see them develop, that’s an idea the IESG could consider for a different document the community could development, but this document is not that document.

I suggest we avoid the temptation to add aspirational items to section 3.3.

Glenn