Meeting Venue (MTGVENUE) Working Group meeting
IETF 98 - Chicago
0900 - 1130 Wednesday, March 29, 2017. Room: Zurich B
Chairs: Charles Eckel, Pete Resnick
Notes thanks to Barry Leiba, combined with comments captured during meeting via issue list in github,

Start at 9:05

Introductory remarks from chairs
Meeting Venue Selection Process draft

Issue #1: What is "mandatory"? (Pete)

Next steps: Editor will provide some introductory paragraphs to clarify how the criteria (mandatory or otherwise) apply at different times, and indicate that this document will provide community guidance for the IAOC. Might also add notes to each criteria about how they will be applied.

Issue #2: (Need a decision tree, Was: Too many categories)

Next steps: Post to list for guidance to whether to leave organization as is or organize with most important first, etc.

Issue #3: Too much mandatory

Next steps: Start by defining clearly what "Mandatory" means. Revisit list of mandatories, categorizing as important by default, and argue individually for any that are to be mandatory. Constrain mandatory requirements as much as possible. Eliot to make initial recategorization.

Issue #4: Process innovation

Next steps: Consensus in room to remove text.

Issue #5: Clarity on definitions re: hotel rooms

Next Steps: Eliot to work with Andrew offline on definitions and bring proposal back to the list

Switch to Suresh: meeting-policy document
Overview of changes since last version
Overview of open issues

Issue #1: Why do we meet in new places? Is one reason to attract new participants?

Next steps: Remove text

Issue #2: How do we define regions?

Next steps: Ted and Bob will work with Suresh on proposed text

Issue #3: How do we define success criteria for exploratory meetings?

Next steps: Remove text

Back to Eliot

Issue #6: Terminology is hard to follow

Next steps: Eliot and Andrew to work offline on evaluation of definitions and return to list with proposal

Issue #7: Clarity of responsibility

Next steps: Add this as introduction in section 1, taking Brian's proposal into account as well. Pete will try to find Brian's suggested text in the archive and get back to Eliot.

Issue #8: What if target list of cities are not known? (Sec 5.1)

Next steps: Eliot to clarify, adding step to identify cities

Issue #9: Concurrent objection?

Next steps: Indicate that community responses (step b) can come in continuously

Issue #10: What happens if there is a change of policies in the interim?

Next steps: Invoked if mandatory criterion is violated after contract has been signed

Issue #11: Text seems strange (Sec 2.2)

Next step: Eliot to reword to less offensive and inclusive.

Issue #12: Sponsor required as mandatory?

Next steps: Proposal to remove. Eliot to verify on list. Funding/sponsorship issue may need to be added as a separate issue. Discuss this on list.

Issue #13: Handling repeats

Next steps: Clarify "Venue" vs "Facility"

Issue #14: Odd that accessibility requirements differ

Next steps: Discussion was inconclusive. Leave text as is and lieu of a concrete proposal for how to change.

Issue: #15 Distinction between these two requirements?

Next steps: Eliot to check if network specifications draft covers and reference it.

End at 11:30