Hi Richard,
Just a short answer to avoid a long discussion on each of your replies ...
It is broken, anyone that has proposed to host an IETF meeting know it. What
you can read in the actual web page about hosting a meeting is not correct
in the reality, and can't be 100% subjective (yes there will be a decision
at the end, and that imply certain degree of subjectivity, but a criteria
helps to make it as much objective and fair as possible).
Remember my example, a real one: Venue A is proposed and is rejected because
reason "X". Some months later another venue "B" is hosting the IETF with
same problem "X" and even with a higher degree on the "X" problem compared
with venue "A". I don't thin you can still say isn't broken ! There are many
other examples and lot of people willing to host that has no starting point
to know if they can actually be a candidate venue or not.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Richard Shockey <richard(_at_)shockey(_dot_)us>
Responder a: <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Fecha: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:36:21 -0500
Para: <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-palet-ietf-meeting-venue-selection-criteria-04.txt
J
I'm assuming this is going to be Informational only and as such not
formally binding on the IAOC on the Secretariat.
My personal view is that this should be an Informational document, as a
guideline of the selection criteria, as I already tried to describe in the
document.
There should be no difference between this and any other IETF document, in
that sense.
But there are differences Informational is just that Informational and
as such not binding on the parties as would be the Charter of the IAB
IAOC, NOMCOM etc.
My opinion is that the binding is not related to the document type, but to
how we want to manage the meetings the next years.
Clearly, the old document that we have in the IETF site is insufficient and
the decision is so *subjective* (not accusing to anyone, just a fact), that
the situation is not fair neither acceptable.
My position is this A. if it an'nt broke dont fix it and I do not see
what is currently broken. B is is irrelevant whether the selection is
subjective or not. All selections of this type are ultimately
subjective. This class of IETF policy is the IMHO business of those to
whom the NOMCOM has appointed to oversee such activity in this case the
IAOC.
If the IAOC wishes to develop a criterion for site selections and then
seek community support for such criterion then fine , that is the IETF
way as I have come to understand it.
We appoint leadership for a reason ..to lead and make decisions. I dont
like binding leadership with rules unless they serve a specific defined
purpose necessary to the critical functioning of the organization. This
is one of those decisions best left to those to whom we duly appoint to
make such decisions.
In shorter words I believe in the concept of Management. The business of
IETF Management is to Manage so we can get on with our business which is
Internet Standards.
I've complained during years, and I guess that was the reason Brian
Carpenter pointed to me suggesting that I should write the document (not
stating that Madrid should be the right venue), and I decided to take the
"risk".
Well Madrid indeed anywhere in Spain is the right venue for _anything_
:-) IMHO!!! I personally would not have any objection to having all
future IETF meetings in Spain. Well maybe alternate the fall meetings in
Portugal .. Oporto Lisbon come to mind. Now I can see some objections
to Ibiza. That might be a stretch...but at least once???
IMHO Brian Carpenter was seriously wrong in suggesting that an
individual member of the community attempt to create such a policy
document especially since we have just gone through a brutal process to
set up a brand new management oversight committee to ultimately preform
such functions, the IAOC.
Please dont get my wrong. You have obviously put much work into this and
we should all be grateful for such contributions to the community. I
just dont think it was necessary right now and even if there was a
general consensus that it was necessary this is the proper task of the
IAOC.
Brian should have known better.
In fact that should be made explicit that nothing in this document
should be considered formally binding on the IAOC or the Secretariat and
that it only represents "useful suggestions".
I think that's precisely against the original target of the document. As
said is only a guideline, but it must be followed in an objective way.
NO on that I do disagree. That is why if this document is to become a
RFC and I believe that it should not, it must be Informational.
My understanding is that the IAOC is not engaged in the day-to-day work, and
that's the reason to have the IASA, the secretariat and the IAD. But they
need community driven guidelines to be able to follow as much as possible an
objective criteria.
The current set up is very new. I think it is a very very bad idea to
impose policy criterion on these bodies until the dust settles. It has
been a long hard struggle to get where we are at right now. Again if the
IAOC wishes to consider such criterion then your draft is better edited
there then presented to the community.
Now, all that said, I don't recall having heard comments from your side on
the document during all the process in any of the previous versions. It will
be very helpful that you provide them now, but please, try to be
constructive by commenting what exactly you dislike and even propose
specific text. I'm sure everyone will be happy to consider all the inputs.
I have commented on the document.
I dont think it should exist and certainly not as a BCP or Standards
Track RFC.
1. Venue Selection Criterion is best left to the IAOC to determine
policy. 2. Even if there was a need for community input the current IETF
administrative structure is very new and some what fragile and we should
not for the time being impose unwanted solutions on them they did not
solicit support for.
--
Richard Shockey, Director - Member of Technical Staff
NeuStar Inc.
46000 Center Oak Plaza - Sterling, VA 20166
sip:rshockey(at)iptel.org sip:57141(at)fwd.pulver.com
ENUM +87810-13313-31331
PSTN Office +1 571.434.5651 PSTN Mobile +1 703.593.2683
Fax: +1 815.333.1237
<mailto:richard(at)shockey.us> or
<mailto:richard.shockey(at)neustar.biz>
<http://www.neustar.biz> ; <http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org
Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Slides available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information, including attached files, is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf