idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 9, 2017) is 2577 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Best Current Practice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Internet Engineering Task Force S. Krishnan 3 Internet-Draft Ericsson 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice March 9, 2017 5 Expires: September 10, 2017 7 High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF 8 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-00 10 Abstract 12 This document describes a proposed meeting policy for the IETF and 13 the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy. 15 Status of This Memo 17 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 18 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 20 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 21 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 22 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 23 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 25 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 26 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 27 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 28 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 30 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 10, 2017. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 35 document authors. All rights reserved. 37 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 38 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 39 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 40 publication of this document. Please review these documents 41 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 42 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 43 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 44 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 45 described in the Simplified BSD License. 47 Table of Contents 49 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50 2. The 1-1-1-* meeting policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 51 3. Implementation of the policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 4. Re-evaluation and changes to this policy . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 5. Open items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 6. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 56 7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 58 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 60 1. Introduction 62 The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group 63 mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high 64 bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues. The IETF 65 currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET] where 66 the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America, 67 Europe, and Asia that are the locations most of the IETF participants 68 have come from in the recent past. This meeting rotation is mainly 69 aimed at distributing the travel pain for the existing IETF 70 participants who physically attend meetings and for distributing the 71 timezone pain for those who participate remotely. This policy has 72 neither been defined precisely nor documented in an IETF consensus 73 document. The goal of this document is to provide an initial 74 definition of the policy, and eventually to get a consensus-backed 75 version published as a BCP. 77 2. The 1-1-1-* meeting policy 79 Given that the majority of the current participants come from North 80 America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that our 81 meetings should primarily be in those regions. i.e., the meeting 82 policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings should 83 rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. It is important to 84 note that such rotation and any effects to distributing travel pain 85 should be considered from a long-term perspective. While the typical 86 cycle in an IETF year may be a meeting in North America in March, a 87 meeting in Europe in July, and a meeting in Asia on November, the 88 1-1-1 policy does not mandate such a cycle, as long as the 89 distribution to these regions over multiple years is roughy equal. 90 There are many reasons why meetings might be distributed differently 91 in a given year, and that is fine as long as the distribution in 92 subsequent years balances out the disruptions. 94 BACKGROUND NOTE:The IETF recognizes that we have not always been 95 successful in following this policy over the past few years. In 96 fact, at the time of writing, going back 6 years the meeting 97 locations resemble more the previous 3-2-1 policy (9 Americas, 6 98 Europe and 3 Asia). This is attributable to two reasons: 100 o we plan meetings 3 years ahead (meaning meetings for 3 of the 6 101 years had already been planned when the new policy was set) 103 o there were some logistical issues (venue availability, cost etc.). 105 While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF 106 participants, we need to recognize that due to the dynamic and 107 evolving nature of participation, there may be significant changes to 108 the regions that provide a major share of participants in the future. 109 The 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly modified version of the 110 aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that allows for additional 111 flexibility in the form of an exploratory meeting denoted as a "*". 112 This exploratory meeting can be used to experiment with exceptional 113 meetings without extensively impacting the regular meetings. e.g. 114 these exploratory meetings can include meetings in other geographical 115 regions, virtual meetings and additional meetings past the three 116 regular meetings in a calendar year. 118 The exploratory meeting proposals will be initiated based on 119 community consent. After such a proposal is initiated the IESG will 120 make a decision in consultation with the IAOC [RFC4071] to ensure 121 that the proposal can be realistically implemented. The final 122 decision will be communicated back to the community to ensure that 123 there is adequate opportunity to comment. 125 NOTE: There have not been many such exploratory meetings in the past 126 (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and IETF47 in Adelaide being the 127 exceptional instances). How often we intend to do such meetings in 128 the future should also be an open topic for discussion within the 129 community. 131 3. Implementation of the policy 133 Once this meeting policy has been agreed upon, the policy will be 134 provided to the IAOC as high level guidance. Similarly, any 135 exploratory meeting decisions will also be communicated to the IAOC 136 to be implemented. The actual selection of the venue would be 137 performed by the IAOC following the process described in 138 [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]. 140 The IAOC will also be responsible 141 o to assist the community in the development of detailed meeting 142 criteria that are feasible and implementable, and 144 o to provide sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning 145 planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and 146 acted upon. 148 4. Re-evaluation and changes to this policy 150 Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it 151 is expected that this policy needs to be periodically evaluated and 152 revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met. The 153 criteria that are to be met to initiate a revision need to be agreed 154 upon by the community prior to the publication of this document. 155 (e.g. try to mirror draft author distribution over the preceding five 156 years). 158 5. Open items 160 There has been some discussion on whether attracting new particpants 161 is one of the stated goals of this policy. At this point the general 162 consensus seems to be that meeting in new regions has not had a 163 statistically significant increase in continued participation. The 164 WG should discuss whether to mention this as a goal or not. 166 This draft uses the terms North America, Europe and Asia without a 167 precise definition of the geographical regions. This might lead to 168 some ambiguities. Is this ambiguity something that is desirable or 169 not? Or should we redefine the regions based on other criteria such 170 as the distribution of RIRs (e.g. ARIN/RIPE/APNIC/LACNIC/AfriNIC), 171 the UN statistical department's classification of macro geographical 172 regions? 174 Do we need to predefine success criteria for the exploratory 175 meetings? One of the ways we can do this is to link the success 176 criteria to the reasoning behind holding an exploratory meeting. It 177 is expected that the proponents of such meetings will be able to come 178 up with the success criteria. 180 6. Acknowledgments 182 The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker, 183 Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, 184 Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen, 185 Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier, and 186 Melinda Shore for their ideas and comments to improve this document. 188 7. References 190 7.1. Normative References 192 [RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the 193 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, 194 RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005, 195 . 197 7.2. Informative References 199 [CONT-DIST] 200 arkko.com, "Distribution of authors by continent", 2016, 201 . 203 [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] 204 Pelletier, R., Nugent, L., Crocker, D., Berger, L., 205 Jacobsen, O., Martin, J., and F. Baker, "IETF Plenary 206 Meeting Venue Selection Process", draft-ietf-mtgvenue- 207 iaoc-venue-selection-process-04 (work in progress), 208 December 2016. 210 [IETFMEET] 211 IAOC Plenary Presentation, "IETF 1-1-1 Meeting Policy", 212 2010, . 215 Author's Address 217 Suresh Krishnan 218 Ericsson 220 Email: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com