Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,


On 4/6/17 1:39 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> On 05/04/17 23:43, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> This stance quite plainly empties the word "mandatory" of its meaning.
>> If you wish to remove the "mandatory" items and call them "Really
>> Sooper Genius Important" or something (to indicate that they're More
>> Important than the Important ones), I'm ok with that.  But they're not
>> _mandatory_. 
> +1, that class is not useful IMO, getting rid of it will help

I think we are coming quite close to it, and if that is what the WG
wants, then your editor will happily comply (conversely if the WG wants
to keep all the mandatory criteria as are, the same holds.  This is,
after all, a WG doc). 

Based on the breakdown I mentioned there are only three Mandatory fields
left.  One is that the community must have been consulted, the second is
that there is enough space for the meeting, and the third is wheelchair
accessible (this last as agreed in the room).  The first is something
that could be moved to Section 5.  The last is something that probably
still needs some wordsmithing in order to be actionable by the IAOC. 
That leaves "enough space".  I have attempted to rewrite it so that it
is more clearly actionable.

The issue then is whether "Mandatory" means we have to cancel the
meeting if, for some reason, the number of rooms comes up short.  That
is- we signed the contract, and, well, oops.  We have more WGs that need
to meet, because we didn't know how things would look N years ago.  It
would be simply crazy to do so.  But the IAOC shouldn't PLAN for such a
shortfall.

Eliot