[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]

Versions: 00

MTGVENUE                                                     A. Sullivan
Internet-Draft                                                 Dyn, Inc.
Intended status: Informational                                 A. Cooper
Expires: January 9, 2017                                   Cisco Systems
                                                            July 8, 2016


Prioritized Objectives for Making Decisions in Selecting a Meeting Venue
                  draft-sullivan-mtgvenue-decisions-00

Abstract

   Selecting a site for an IETF meeting necessarily involves balancing
   various factors about the site and the goals of the IETF meeting.
   Those who are faced with choosing a site need guidance on how to
   prioritize objectives in making such decisions, since no algorithm is
   possible.  This memo provides a set of such objectives in order of
   importance.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on January 9, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Sullivan & Cooper        Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-DraftMeeting Selection Decision-making Principles     July 2016


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
     2.1.  Inclusiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.2.  Co-location of attendees  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     2.3.  Network access  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.4.  Safety and security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.5.  Affordability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Non-Objectives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  One roof  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Maximal attendance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  Geographic outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix A.  Discussion Venue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Appendix B.  Change History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   As [I-D.baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] makes clear,
   there are myriad factors to balance in choosing an IETF meeting
   venue.  While that document outlines some important principles at
   work in considering the factors, it offers only guidance about how to
   decide among competing considerations.

   This memo offers a list of objectives, in descending order of
   importance, in an attempt to guide decision-makers.  These are
   objectives, not rules, and are intended to guide decisions in a way
   that encourages the productivity and comity of the IETF community.

   It is expected that the list will be initially controversial.  It is
   offered as a proposal in order to determine whether the community has
   collective preferences.  Expression of such collective preferences
   can help those who are making venue selections be confident that they
   understand what the community is likely to want.  If it becomes clear
   that the community cannot really come to a conclusion about how to
   order these sorts of objectives, that too is information for those
   undertaking venue selection.

2.  Objectives







Sullivan & Cooper        Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-DraftMeeting Selection Decision-making Principles     July 2016


2.1.  Inclusiveness

   The purpose of an IETF meeting is above all to support the standards-
   development work that is undertaken by IETF participants.  Therefore,
   when selecting venues, maximal inclusiveness is paramount, and must
   trump other considerations.  Maximizing inclusiveness carries a
   number of implications:

   Legal exclusions:  Formal legal exclusions or differential treatment
      by authorities in a candidate destination, on the basis of age,
      gender or gender identity, sexuality, marital status, political
      views, racial background, nationality, countries previously
      visited, or any other category of irrelevant discrimination, in
      general ought to disqualify a site from candidacy.  Informal but
      widely-experienced (or widely-announced) persistent discrimination
      of the same sort, particularly at the point of immigration, should
      also be treated as an extremely negative consideration, but is not
      the same as formal legal sanction against an identifiable group.

   Accessibility:  IETF contributors have different physical abilities.
      An acceptable venue must accommodate the ranges of physical
      ability found across the community.  This means that attendance at
      every session and accommodation in meeting hotels must be a
      practical possibility for those using a variety of assistive
      devices.

   Distribution of travel difficulty and cost:  The composition of IETF
      contributors changes over time, and the difficulty and cost of
      travel ought to be shared throughout the community.  This includes
      difficulties relating to long journeys, different customs in modes
      of travel, and cultural adjustment to local norms of visitor
      behaviour.

   Predictions are hard, especially about the future:  Legal, political,
      and economic realities sometimes change after an agreement is
      signed, and nobody expects infallible predictions.  The goal is
      still maximal inclusiveness, even if that goal can be only
      imperfectly realised.

2.2.  Co-location of attendees

   The IETF does not meet to make decisions: those are made on mailing
   lists.  The reason for the in-person meetings is twofold.  First, it
   is to address issues that can be better solved in person because of
   the way in-person communication can often dissolve misunderstanding
   more quickly than written communication can.  Second, it is to
   encourage the development of social bonds and informal understanding
   so that later written communication can be easier.



Sullivan & Cooper        Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-DraftMeeting Selection Decision-making Principles     July 2016


   Accordingly, sites to be selected must provide the necessary support
   for informal interaction and random group work.  In practice, this
   means that:

   o  Venues need to be in urban areas in order to accommodate a wide
      range of opportunities for these kinds of interaction.

   o  Meeting hotels need to be in close proximity to each other and the
      venue.

2.3.  Network access

   Unfettered high-bandwidth access to the entire Internet, from all the
   hotels associated with the meeting, is a necessary criterion for a
   successful meeting.  It should be treated as an extremely negative
   consideration were mobile networks outside the hotels to be subject
   to significant filtering or interference.

2.4.  Safety and security

   In keeping with the objective of inclusiveness noted in Section 2.1,
   an acceptable venue will be in general safe for individuals.  Health
   risks and issues of safety from violence or personal crime are to be
   regarded as worse than issues of crimes against property.

2.5.  Affordability

   Many IETF participants fund their own way to meetings, and many
   others have limited employer support for travel.  With the
   understanding that the facilities necessary to achieve the goals of
   meeting in person at all cannot be sacrificed, the cost to meeting
   attendees for accommodation should be minimized.

3.  Non-Objectives

3.1.  One roof

   While it can be convenient to hold a meeting in a venue under "one
   roof" (e.g. a conference centre with an attached hotel, or a large
   hotel with many meeting rooms), it is a secondary goal and may be
   sacrificed whenever it is in tension with goals in Section 2.

3.2.  Maximal attendance

   Because the IETF garners a significant portion of its revenue from
   IETF meeting fees, there is considerable incentive for decision-
   makers to prefer a venue that will attract more attendees.  It is
   important to resist this temptation: a larger meeting in which key



Sullivan & Cooper        Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-DraftMeeting Selection Decision-making Principles     July 2016


   contributors could not make it is not a better meeting; neither is
   one with a lot of "tourists".

3.3.  Geographic outreach

   The IETF moves its meetings around to ensure that those who can
   participate in person at the meetings share the difficulty and cost
   of travel.  The point of such moving is emphatically not to find new
   or interesting places to visit, or to undertake outreach to new
   communities who would not otherwise participate in the IETF.

4.  Informative References

   [I-D.baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]
              Baker, F., "IAOC Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process",
              draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-03 (work
              in progress), July 2016.

Appendix A.  Discussion Venue

   This Internet-Draft is offered for discussion in the IETF MTGVENUE
   working group, and on its mailing list <mtgvenue@ietf.org>

Appendix B.  Change History

   00:

      *  Initial version

Authors' Addresses

   Andrew Sullivan
   Dyn, Inc.
   150 Dow St
   Manchester, NH  03101
   U.S.A.

   Email: asullivan@dyn.com


   Alissa Cooper
   Cisco Systems
   707 Tasman Drive
   Milpitas, CA  95305
   U.S.A.

   Email: alcoop@cisco.com




Sullivan & Cooper        Expires January 9, 2017                [Page 5]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/