IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process
draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process@ietf.org, alissa@cooperw.in, mtgvenue-chairs@ietf.org, mtgvenue@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Subject: Protocol Action: 'IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process' to Best Current Practice (draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process'
  (draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16.txt) as Best Current
  Practice

This document is the product of the Meeting Venue Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Alissa Cooper.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process/


Technical Summary

   The purpose of this document is to guide the IASA in their selection
   of regions, cities, facilities, and hotels when arranging IETF
   plenary meeting venue selection.  The IASA applies this guidance at
   different points in the process in an attempt to faithfully meet the
   requirements of the IETF community. We specify a set of general
   criteria for venue selection and several requirements for
   transparency and community consultation.

Working Group Summary

   Two things of note: 1) There was a good deal of disagreement about
   the general format of the document and its purpose at the time the
   current chairs were appointed. In particular, it was difficult to
   figure out what different people meant by "mandatory" and
   "important". In the end, rough consensus seemed to be that
   "mandatory" items were those that could not be disregarded by IASA
   without coming back to the community and get a new consensus on the
   failure to meet the criteria, while "important" items were those that
   IASA could exercise it's judgment, and simply report to the community
   if any were not met. In the end, only three items were considered
   "mandatory". 2) Several people made direct and significant textual
   contributions to the document. They are now noted in the
   "Contributors" section, as per current procedure. However, this is
   obviously not ideal, since those people are not included in the
   citation index or on the cover page of the document. On the other
   hand, having all of those people on the front page is unwieldy, and
   having them all responsible to reply to the AUTH48 is undesirable.
   This is something that the IESG should work out.

Document Quality

   The secretariat (and in particular, the meeting arranger) did a
   solicited review of the document, and all comments were addressed in
   the document. The secretariat also did a review of how previous
   meetings would or would not have conformed to the criteria in the
   document, and the WG found the results to be satisfactory.

Personnel

  Pete Resnick  is the shepherd.
  Alissa Cooper  is the responsible AD.

RFC Editor Note

"IASA" should be expanded on first use in the abstract.

This document together with draft-mtgvenue-meeting-policy would logically form one new BCP I think.