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]