Hi Jay,
A clarifying question below.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:59 PM Jay Daley <exec-director@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Ted
This response is sent on behalf of the IETF LLC Board.
> On 23 May 2025, at 20:12, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Dear Jay, Roman, and members of the IETF LLC board,
>
> In the statement below, you say:
>
>> It also considered the viability of the meeting and concluded that there will be sufficient participation for the meeting to be financially viable and to meet the threshold set by the IESG for a technically viable meeting [3].
>>
> The citation is to the IESG response for the community discussion for Shenzhen, not for a decision by the IESG about San Francisco. In that process the LLC was asked to “explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 of ‘Why we meet’ will be met”.
>
> Is this reference meant to indicate that the IETF LLC used the data from the previous consultation to make this decision? Or did the IETF LLC explicitly confirm with the IESG that the core objective from RFC8718 will be met?
>
> Roman, if the latter, I would appreciate a citation from the IESG and a summary similar to that in section E of https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF_125_Decision_and_Survey_Summary_version_2024-10-08.pdf . I believe it is very important that the community understand the IESG's conclusion here, in addition to the IETF LLC's, as the IESG is charged with the standards process and part of the risk here is to the standards process.
>
> Jay, if the former, I would like to understand why the IESG was not asked a similar question, given the community objections raised.
>
> My thanks for your attention, and I look forward to your responses,
The IETF LLC introduced a new step in the venue selection process that asked the IESG to assess if a meeting will be technically viable, in response to community concerns about a meeting in China. This process was followed for that meeting’s venue planning. In their decision, the IESG effectively set a lower bound on participation by core contributors necessary for a productive meeting.
For clarity, do you believe the new lower bound to be that set by IETF 113, which is cited in the IESG's decision or the predicted attendance for China? If I am interpreting things correctly, the onsite attendance for IETF 113 was 22% and this occurred as the pandemic lockdowns were just beginning to be eased. (from appendix D of the IESG decision). The predicted attendance for the China meeting is 51% (from appendix E).
As part of the venue assessment process, the IETF LLC Board signs off on estimates of onsite participation for every meeting and the corresponding meeting space requirements and accommodation guarantees, taking on the risk of over/under usage each time it does so. The IETF LLC Board, as part of its broader review of the IETF 127 San Francisco meeting, concluded that participation would be above the lower bound set by the IESG and therefore the new step of asking the IESG was not required.
I do not believe that this change was communicated to the community adequately, if it was communicated (I cannot find it in my archives). If the IESG has set a participation floor, I believe it would be appropriate for that to be communicated via an IESG note, which generally get community attention.
My thanks for your response,
Ted Hardie
kind regards
Jay
--
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
exec-director@xxxxxxxx
