Hi Andrew, Thanks for your comments. Just one point inline. > On Apr 18, 2018, at 9:34 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Dear IESG, > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 01:12:40PM -0700, The IESG 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 > > In a recent discussion, the IAOC came to realise that the documents > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process and > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy may be in some tension. One of > them requires the IASA to balance meeting venues over time, and the > other has requirements that a meeting must meet. > > One possible difficulty that arises from the combination is if one > region turns out to be vastly more expensive than others. In that > case, some criteria for each venue may not be met in one region. The > result might also be financially ruinous for the IETF in general. > > The current IAOC interprets the drafts such that any of the criteria > except those in section 3.1 of > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process may be traded against > any other, over several years if need be, in order to meet the > geographic distribution policy described in > draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy. Personally, I think the above interpretation is accurate. I did add some text in meeting-policy (below) to try to clarify this but can further refine/augment this text if you think it would be helpful. " While the typical cycle in an IETF year may be a meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not mandate such a cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple years is roughly equal." Thanks Suresh
