Michael, Inline as [GD] > On Jul 20, 2018, at 2:02 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Deen, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <Glenn.Deen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> My [GD] attempts to answer are below > > Thanks. > >> -glenn > >> On 7/18/18, 7:04 PM, "ietf on behalf of Michael Richardson" <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> in the IASA. It appears that procedures were not always written down >>> as completely as one might like, and the apparent gaps have had to be >>> filled in from people's recollections. > >> Could we have a list of the things that were filled in? >> Maybe the community will notice that the recollection was inaccurate? > > GD> At this point the new procedures are in place and it would be an > GD> extraordinary effort to attempt > GD> go back create such a list. > > So, i'm not asking for that. > I'm asking: what proceedures did you find were missing and had to be > documented? It should be a short list of five or ten words, I'd think. [GD] Getting a little into the weeds here, but the specific procedures had to do with the hand-off from the previous IAD to the new one, so even if community members _did_ know those things they probably shouldn't and it would be inappropriate to post them. The good news is that this is now past us. >>> is not available). Accordingly, the IAOC closed the Tools Management >>> Committee. At the same meeting, the IAOC closed the Sponsorship > >> How will the tools work be supervised, and reported to the community? > > GD> The Tools work and reporting continues as it was except there is no > GD> longer an IAOC subcommittee in the middle. See the Tools team page: > GD> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/tools/ > > That page didn't help me at all, and would do nothing to help > someone who wasn't already familiar with the workings of things. > > Previously, the tools team was effectively "managed" by the IAOC > subcommittee. If the tools team identified that there was paid > work that needed to be done, then it made the IAOC aware of that. > If I had a problem with the tools team, the IAOC was the place to complain > to. Is the path now via the IAD? > [GD]As Brian said in his note the tools have moved historically around and neither place were the exact right place. It’s a reflection of some of the motivation behind the changes being made currently as part of IASA2. Clearly as part of changing to the LLC with more reliance upon staff there is a need to establish communication paths for problems and other discussions. That’s an IASA2 task to address. That isn’t me deflecting the question, it’s an acknowledgement that such communication pathways are needed as part of the IASA2 migration. >>> https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection.html. An important part of that >>> has been the replacement of the former Meetings Committee with a new >>> Venue Review Committee. The new committee is intended to be quite >>> limited in its scope, because its primary task is to evaluate staff >>> recommendations for conformance with the MTGVENUE criteria. This is >>> not an algorithm, of course, so some judgement will be required. But >>> the process is intended to be lightweight and transparent to the >>> community. We're continuing to refine procedures for this, and you >>> should expect to see more announcements over time. > >> Will the reviews be public? In particular, will reasons for rejecting sites >> be public? I don't think the previous evaluation was public, but maybe I >> just never looked in the right place. > >> [GD] >> [GD] The new process that was just established based on MTGVENUE is >> documented in: >> https://iaoc.ietf.org/venue-selection-roles-and-processes.html . > > Thank you. The most useful part of that page: > The venue-selection email address in not a discussion list that can be > subscribed to. Email sent to the address is publicly viewable at the IETF > Mail Archive. > > that this list is archived and public was unknown to me. The write-only, > but archived and viewable, nature of the list is strange, but whatever... [GD]The email address is write only and archived because it is a way to collected specific input from the community, transparently due it being a public archive, but it is not a discussion list specifically to avoid it being used as a place of debate. > I think that the Venue Selection people are doing themselves a disservice by > not making the rational for rejecting public. > a) gonna get the same suggestion over and over again. [GD] there’s nothing wrong with old suggestions resurfacing after a time, because situations do change. > b) circumstances might change and someone might know about it. [GD] Things do change for both the better and the worse, and staff do keep an eye out for changes to places that are under review or even contracted as meeting locations. That’s a role that staff provide to the IAOC when it selects meeting venues, and you can see that in the roles and process document I cited previously. > c) the city itself might realize they have a problem and do something about it. [GD]Appropriate feedback to cities or venues on where they don’t comply with our meeting criteria is of course made when it’s a specific issue that they don’t meet that can be practically addressed with the hope of that they will resolve it and that the venue can be added to the list of places that can be used for IETF meetings. Of course, some issues are too large to easily resolve, such as having nearby hotels at different price points, personal safety, or pain of travel and there’s really not someone responsible to feed those too. [GD] There is a difference however between staff providing feedback to an evaluated venue on where they don’t comply with our meeting criteria, and the IETF publishing a public detailed evaluation of compliance failures and issues. Publishing to the world such information along with criticisms is neither a professional or constructive way to engage with venues and it would result in a lot of venues being hesitant to work with us. Remember, just as the IETF has many venues to choose to bring meetings to, venues have many events to choose to do business with. [GD]That’s why the process is set up the way it is. We publicly disclose the cites that are evaluated as meeting our criteria and those that are not, but without detail. Staff knows and retains the detailed knowledge, shares it with the IAOC and where appropriate it is communicated in a professional manner to the venues. For venues that are rejected that’s where disclosure ends. [GD] For venues that are selected to host a meeting however the process goes a bit further. The process requires that as part of the communication of the venue choice to the community that additional details be shared about the venues compliance with IETF meeting criteria. -Glenn
