Re: A distinction along Pete's dimensions

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

I was a little puzzled to hear that Yokohama didn't meet the food
requirements, by the way.   I ate more than half my meals from the
excellent nearby grocery store.   Would like to go back there agian!

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 4/7/2016 3:56 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> The two cases may be hard to distinguish from a distance, but
>> they are very different.
>>
>
>
> I'm going to suggest that, in practical terms for the IETF, it doesn't
> matter.
>
> It doesn't matter because none of the theory or formal issues can be
> reliably and accurately applied for issues of social concern.
>
> What matters is whatever the community decides it cares about at the time
> we are looking at the area.
>
>
> Here's my logic:
>
>    While some regions -- especially Asia -- have been challenging for
> finding venues, we already have an extensive track-record of finding places
> the community deems acceptable.  Consequently, we have safe harbors to fall
> back on, for each of the 3 regions we regularly visit.
>
>    So when a new country or city is being considered -- and by new, I
> think I mean 'we have never been there', but perhaps we need to leave room
> for reconsideration of previously-visited places? -- we float the general
> countries and maybe cities to the community and wait for support and
> objections.
>
>
> Whatever criteria the community chooses to apply at that time are the
> relevant criteria.  No theory or modeling or documentation or even
> consistency -- and especially no guessing and no errors by an anointed body
> -- are required.
>
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>   Dave Crocker
>   Brandenburg InternetWorking
>   bbiw.net
>
>