idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-05.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 (May 14, 2018) is 2171 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) == Unused Reference: 'RFC4071' is defined on line 186, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4071 (Obsoleted by RFC 8711) == Outdated reference: A later version (-16) exists of draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15 Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment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 Kaloom 4 Intended status: Best Current Practice May 14, 2018 5 Expires: November 15, 2018 7 High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF 8 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-05 10 Abstract 12 This document describes a proposed meeting location policy for the 13 IETF and 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 https://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 November 15, 2018. 32 Copyright Notice 34 Copyright (c) 2018 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 (https://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. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 57 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 59 1. Introduction 61 The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group 62 mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high 63 bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues. The IETF 64 currently strives to have a 1-1-1-* meeting policy [IETFMEET] where 65 the goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America, 66 Europe, and Asia. These are the locations most of the IETF 67 participants have come from in the recent past. This meeting 68 rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the 69 existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for 70 distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate 71 remotely. This policy has neither been defined precisely nor 72 documented in an IETF consensus document until now. This document is 73 meant to serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy 74 published as a BCP. 76 2. The 1-1-1-* meeting policy 78 Given that the majority of the current participants come from North 79 America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that our 80 meetings should primarily be in those regions. i.e., the meeting 81 policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings should 82 rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia. Please note that the 83 boundaries between those regions has been purposefully left 84 undefined. It is important to note that such rotation and any 85 effects to distributing travel pain should be considered from a long- 86 term perspective. While a potential cycle in an IETF year may be a 87 meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a 88 meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not mandate such a 89 cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple 90 years is roughly equal. There are many reasons why meetings might be 91 distributed differently in a given year, and that is fine as long as 92 the distribution in 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 Internet Administrative 121 Support Activity (IASA) to ensure that the proposal can be 122 realistically implemented. The final decision will be communicated 123 back to the community to ensure that there is adequate opportunity to 124 comment. 126 NOTE: There have not been a large number of such exploratory meetings 127 under the current 1-1-1-* policy (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and 128 IETF47 in Adelaide being the exceptional instances). IETF27 129 (Amsterdam) and IETF54(Yokohama) were earlier examples of exploratory 130 meetings that pioneered Europe and Asia as regular IETF destinations. 131 The timing and frequency of future exploratory meetings will be based 132 on IETF consensus as determined by the IETF chair. 134 3. Implementation of the policy 136 Once this meeting policy has been agreed upon, the policy will be 137 provided to the IASA as high level guidance. Similarly, any 138 exploratory meeting decisions will also be communicated to the IASA 139 to be implemented. The actual selection of the venue would be 140 performed by the IASA following the process described in 141 [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]. 143 As mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process], the 144 IASA will also be responsible 146 o to assist the community in the development of detailed meeting 147 criteria that are feasible and implementable, and 149 o to provide sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning 150 planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and 151 acted upon. 153 Given that the geographical location of the venue has a significant 154 influence on the venue selection process, it needs to be considered 155 at the same level as the other Important Criteria specified in 156 Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] 157 (including potentially trading off the geographical region to meet 158 other criteria, and notifying the community if the geographical 159 region requirement cannot be met) 161 4. Re-evaluation and changes to this policy 163 Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it 164 is expected that this policy needs to be periodically evaluated and 165 revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met. The 166 criteria that are to be met need to be agreed upon by the community 167 prior to initiating a revision of this document (e.g. try to mirror 168 draft author distribution over the preceding five years). 170 5. Acknowledgments 172 The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker, 173 Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, 174 Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen, 175 Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier, 176 Melinda Shore, John Klensin, Charles Eckel, Russ Housley, Andrew 177 Sullivan, Eric Rescorla, Richard Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Ted Lemon, 178 Lou Berger, John Levine, Adam Roach, Mark Nottingham, Tom Petch, 179 Randy Bush, Roni Even, Julien Meuric and Lloyd Wood for their ideas 180 and comments to improve this document. 182 6. References 184 6.1. Normative References 186 [RFC4071] Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the 187 IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101, 188 RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005, 189 . 191 6.2. Informative References 193 [CONT-DIST] 194 IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings", 195 2016, 196 . 198 [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process] 199 Lear, E., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process", 200 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-15 (work 201 in progress), May 2018. 203 [IETFMEET] 204 IAOC Plenary Presentation, "IETF 1-1-1 Meeting Policy", 205 2010, . 208 Author's Address 210 Suresh Krishnan 211 Kaloom 213 Email: suresh@kaloom.com