John, On 02-Nov-19 18:59, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Friday, November 1, 2019 17:28 -0700 Rob Sayre > <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> I wouldn't expect us to avoid holding a meeting in >>> California... >>> >> >> This issue has been discussed before: >> >> https://www.ietf.org/blog/barriers-entry/ > > Of course it has and, IIR, that discussion was what led us to > cut back on meetings in the US until and unless things got > better. The questions in this case are > > (1) Whether there might be any issues in Madrid at the time of > the meeting that would require the kind of examination suggested > in that discussion. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to > have an opinion on it. At the same time, while I think we need > to be very careful about hyperbole, exaggerated conditions, or > "fake news", I think it is important to ask the question. > > (2) It is not clear to me whether the (rather new) meeting site > determination and meeting planning process and team consider it > part of their responsibility to examine such questions, rather > than, e.g., meeting room facilities and network connectivity. The criteria in draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process include: "Economic, safety, and health risks associated with this Venue are acceptable." That draft is approved and in the RFC Editor queue waiting for missing references (the IASA2 drafts), so I assume and hope it's being applied by IASA already. > Whether they do or not, I think it is reasonable to ask that > their view of their responsibilities be made clear to the IETF > community. Isn't that exactly why we did the mtgvenue work? > And, if they do not, I think it is reasonable to ask > where and how such questions are to be addressed, keeping in > mind the risks of out-of-control discussions with a surplus of > ignorance and excitement and a shortage of facts. In general, it would be nice to be assured that the two approved mtgvenue drafts are already being applied. Regards, Brian
