



Internet Engineering Task Force                              S. Krishnan
Internet-Draft                                                    Kaloom
Intended status: Best Current Practice                      July 2, 2018
Expires: January 3, 2019


         High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF
                 draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-07

Abstract

   This document describes a meeting location policy for the IETF and
   the various stakeholders for realizing such a policy.

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 https://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 3, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 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
   (https://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
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.






Krishnan                 Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 1]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy                 July 2018


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  The 1-1-1-* meeting policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Implementation of the policy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Procedure for initiating proposals for exploratory meetings .   4
   5.  Re-evaluation and changes to this policy  . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     7.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5

1.  Introduction

   The work of the IETF is primarily conducted on the working group
   mailing lists, while face-to-face WG meetings mainly provide a high
   bandwidth mechanism for working out unresolved issues.  The IETF
   currently strives to have a 1-1-1 meeting policy [IETFMEET] where the
   goal is to distribute the meetings equally between North America,
   Europe, and Asia.  These are the locations most of the IETF
   participants have come from in the recent past.  This meeting
   rotation is mainly aimed at distributing the travel effort for the
   existing IETF participants who physically attend meetings and for
   distributing the timezone difficulty for those who participate
   remotely.  This policy has neither been defined precisely nor
   documented in an IETF consensus document until now.  This document is
   meant to serve as a consensus-backed statement of this policy
   published as a BCP.

2.  The 1-1-1-* meeting policy

   Given that the majority of the current participants come from North
   America, Europe, and Asia [CONT-DIST], the IETF policy is that our
   meetings should primarily be in those regions. i.e., the meeting
   policy (let's call this the "1-1-1" policy) is that meetings should
   rotate between North America, Europe, and Asia.  Please note that the
   boundaries between those regions has been purposefully left
   undefined.  It is important to note that such rotation and any
   effects to distributing travel pain should be considered from a long-
   term perspective.  While a potential cycle in an IETF year may be a
   meeting in North America in March, a meeting in Europe in July, and a
   meeting in Asia on November, the 1-1-1 policy does not imply such a
   cycle, as long as the distribution to these regions over multiple
   years is roughly equal.  There are many reasons why meetings might be
   distributed differently in a given year.  Meeting locations in
   subsequent years should seek to re-balance the distribution if
   possible.



Krishnan                 Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 2]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy                 July 2018


   While this meeting rotation caters to the current set of IETF
   participants, it is important to recognize that due to the dynamic
   and evolving nature of participation, there may be significant
   changes to the regions that provide a major share of participants in
   the future.  The 1-1-1-* meeting policy is a slightly modified
   version of the aforementioned 1-1-1 meeting policy that allows for
   additional flexibility in the form of an exploratory meeting denoted
   as a "*".  This exploratory meeting can be used to experiment with
   exceptional meetings without extensively impacting the regular
   meetings. e.g. these exploratory meetings can include meetings in
   other geographical regions, virtual meetings and additional meetings
   past the three regular meetings in a calendar year.

   The timing and frequency of future exploratory meetings will be based
   on IETF consensus as determined by the IETF chair.  Once a meeting
   proposal is initiated, the IESG will make a decision in consultation
   with the Internet Administrative Support Activity (IASA) to ensure
   that the proposal can be realistically implemented.  The final
   decision will be communicated back to the community to ensure that
   there is adequate opportunity to comment.

   NOTE: There have not been a large number of meetings that would
   qualify as exploratory meetings under the current 1-1-1-* policy
   (with IETF95 in Buenos Aires and IETF47 in Adelaide being the
   exceptional instances).  IETF27 (Amsterdam) and IETF54(Yokohama) were
   earlier examples of exploratory meetings that pioneered Europe and
   Asia as regular IETF destinations.

3.  Implementation of the policy

   IASA should understand the policy written in this document to be the
   aspiration of the IETF community.  Similarly, any exploratory meeting
   decisions will also be communicated to the IASA to be implemented.
   The actual selection of the venue would be performed by the IASA
   following the process described in
   [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process].

   As mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process], the
   IASA will also be responsible

   o  to assist the community in the development of detailed meeting
      criteria that are feasible and implementable, and

   o  to provide sufficient transparency in a timely manner concerning
      planned meetings so that community feedback can be collected and
      acted upon.





Krishnan                 Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 3]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy                 July 2018


   Given that the geographical location of the venue has a significant
   influence on the venue selection process, it needs to be considered
   at the same level as the other Important Criteria specified in
   Section 3.2 of [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]
   (including potentially trading off the geographical region to meet
   other criteria, and notifying the community if the geographical
   region requirement cannot be met)

4.  Procedure for initiating proposals for exploratory meetings

   Someone who is interested in pursuing an exploratory venue proposes
   it on the IETF discussion list or on a future discussion list
   expressly setup and announced for this purpose.  The community gets
   to comment on the venue and to offer their opinions.  If the IETF
   chair determines that there is community consensus to pursue the
   venue further, the venue will be put up for discussion on the venue-
   selection mailing list.  This would allow the interested party(ies)
   to refine their proposal with those tasked with evaluating it and
   providing further insightful feedback regarding the logistics of the
   venue.  Once the venue selection process takes place, the final
   decision will be communicated back to the community to ensure that
   there is adequate opportunity to comment.

5.  Re-evaluation and changes to this policy

   Given the dynamic nature of participant distribution in the IETF, it
   is expected that this policy needs to be periodically evaluated and
   revised to ensure that the stated goals continue to be met.  The
   criteria that are to be met need to be agreed upon by the community
   prior to initiating a revision of this document (e.g. try to mirror
   draft author distribution over the preceding five years).

6.  Acknowledgments

   The author would like to thank Jari Arkko, Alia Atlas, Fred Baker,
   Brian Carpenter, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins,
   Stephen Farrell, Tobias Gondrom, Eric Gray, Bob Hinden, Ole Jacobsen,
   Olaf Kolkman, Eliot Lear, Andrew Malis, Yoav Nir, Ray Pelletier,
   Melinda Shore, John Klensin, Charles Eckel, Russ Housley, Andrew
   Sullivan, Eric Rescorla, Richard Barnes, Cullen Jennings, Ted Lemon,
   Lou Berger, John Levine, Adam Roach, Mark Nottingham, Tom Petch,
   Randy Bush, Roni Even, Julien Meuric, Lloyd Wood, Alvaro Retana and
   Martin Vigoureux for their ideas and comments to improve this
   document.







Krishnan                 Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 4]

Internet-Draft             IETF Meeting Policy                 July 2018


7.  References

7.1.  Normative References

   [RFC4071]  Austein, R., Ed. and B. Wijnen, Ed., "Structure of the
              IETF Administrative Support Activity (IASA)", BCP 101,
              RFC 4071, DOI 10.17487/RFC4071, April 2005,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4071>.

7.2.  Informative References

   [CONT-DIST]
              IETF, "Number of attendees per continent across meetings",
              2016,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/stats/meeting/continent/>.

   [I-D.ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process]
              Lear, E., "IETF Plenary Meeting Venue Selection Process",
              draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-16 (work
              in progress), June 2018.

   [IETFMEET]
              IAOC Plenary Presentation, "IETF 1-1-1 Meeting Policy",
              2010, <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/
              plenaryw-3.pdf>.

Author's Address

   Suresh Krishnan
   Kaloom

   Email: suresh@kaloom.com



















Krishnan                 Expires January 3, 2019                [Page 5]
