RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:15 UTC

Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714DF12D516 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:15:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZLrrfc6S6aMS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:15:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (asmtp2.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.249]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14BA612D1DE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from asmtp2.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u37HFcYh029260; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:15:38 +0100
Received: from 950129200 (dhcp-b176.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.177.118]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp2.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u37HFAJ1029103 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:15:16 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk> <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net> <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$@olddog.co.uk> <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <570677BC.9000900@dcrocker.net>
Subject: RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:15:07 +0100
Message-ID: <00b001d190f1$196e6b80$4c4b4280$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGMmqG5z30WLKo9QlhbwnFG9R5TNAJCqcjaAkyoPygCMVXiDZ/SpdtQ
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1679-8.0.0.1202-22246.000
X-TM-AS-Result: No-2.051-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No-2.051-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: 5+1rHnqhWUQ4HKI/yaqRm4zb2GR6Ttd3H8cjAOna5KtaW2Ktn+I8/hEQ uhnt7JpjH9NHCwoYsb3mrA+Lc6CI37Cul2XVVRIPtrSss6fsjJbE7bRw0ZDPdX7wEfYmi+rXo8W MkQWv6iV95l0nVeyiuBQF+BLVItD4C24oEZ6SpSmb4wHqRpnaDloBejTqxk8YF0sdaHTHb4fbzt 1k6zXI/irSN06TrpHLsoyfxaAS8/fWim5wZMkGaf0tasqNnrFIO/4ugxoBFPDBenvS2vbcD+Q/b JqlQQ/copZ51QxAj3fx+wL7E8WTG+w2n3R9PgSOc5bjXhMesgI=
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/oJd_zbC4HMMPReNBTByntpg-Lxo>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:15:49 -0000

> A practical issue is that announcing a venue before there is a contract
> in place for the meeting site impairs our ability to negotiate the
> contract.

We are engineering.
But I will break a rule and go there.

I don't see that saying "we are considering Hong Kong, Singapore, and Manila"
reduces our ability to negotiate in Singapore. Maybe it even strengthens it.

But there we go. Looks like sometimes we may need to pay a price to get what we
want. The loss on cancelation may be greater than the loss on negotiation.

Adrian