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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Dave, Eliot,
>
> Seems to me like you're using different semantics for the same
> label.
>
> A: Eliot: ""mandatory" means "it's impossible to have a successful;
> meeting unless the criterion is met."
>


>
> B: Dave: "What dropping this item does is to move it from being an
> exception requiring community review to something the IAOC can decide
> without community review. " which I think is equivalent to saying
> that "mandatory" means "MUST unless community informed and ok with
> not meeting the criterion."
>
>
I question the utility of (A).


I think "mandatory" could be useful, were it actually used the way Eliot
describes it.  The community could decide, for example, that we cannot have
a successful meeting where access to the Internet is not available (e.g.
parts of Cameroon at the moment and 55 other places during the course of
last yea
<https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Rights%20Con%202017%20Press%20Release%20March28.pdf>r).
We can define that pretty crisply( e.g. "At least N of the K root servers")
for the purposes of the requirement.

And the marching orders for mandatory can be crisp too:  if this isn't met,
move or cancel the meeting.  If a natural disaster has eliminated the local
air transit hub(s):  move or cancel the meeting.  If an armed conflict has
erupted:  move or cancel the meeting.

It may seem silly to state those and put in the marching orders, but I
think it actually helps distinguish between those and the category below
which I interpret as "confirm exception is okay".  So if the local currency
skyrockets and the costs go up 40% over night (hello, CHF), we might have
marching orders to confirm the exception to our usual cost basis with the
community.

I personally hope that the categories end up somewhere along the lines:

Mandatory:  If not met, don't schedule the meeting here and move or cancel
the meeting if the requirement ceases to be met.

Exception-required:  Confirm that these are met during scheduling or get
community confirmation of the exception.

Important:  Things we care about but which can be traded off if the balance
of requirements is met without confirmation by the full community.

Desired:  Things we like, but which can be dropped without having an impact
on the meeting's effectiveness.

No hats,

Ted

(B) might be good actually but
> in that case a better label could be defined as meaning that.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
> PS: Apologies if this was discussed on the list before or in the
> meeting in Chicago.
>
>
> On 05/04/17 18:51, Eliot Lear wrote:
> > Dave,
> >
> > I think this goes to the heart of what "mandatory" means.  Editorially,
> > the sense I got of the room (or at least the implication) that matches
> > the directive to downgrade was that "mandatory" means "it's impossible
> > to have a successful; meeting unless the criteria is met."  Thus the
> > agreement on the need to argue the reverse of what you listed: what is
> > the justification for this requirement being mandatory?
> >
> > Eliot
> >
> >
> > On 4/5/17 7:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2017 6:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> >>> As mentioned by the chair, I am downgrading requirements based on
> >>> working group discussion, mostly from Mandatory to Important.  As a
> >>> reminder, the words are intended to be used consistent with their
> >>> plain meaning.  That is- just because something is now Important
> >>> specifically does not mean that it is UNimportant.
> >>
> >> While it's understandable to wish for a shorter list, the realities of
> >> what this community keeps insisting on is what produced the current set.
> >>
> >> For each item that folk propose to drop, we should carefully discuss
> >> the history that produced it and the likely community reaction if the
> >> requirement is not met, going forward.
> >>
> >>
> >>>  From Mandatory to Important:
> >>
> >> So this means that any of these items can be traded-off against some
> >> other item.  That means that for each one, it can be acceptable not to
> >> satisfy the 'requirement'.
> >>
> >> Note that there is always the ability to seek exceptions to any
> >> requirement.  What dropping this item does is to move it from being an
> >> exception requiring community review to something the IAOC can decide
> >> without community review.
> >>
> >>
> >> Consider...
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Travel to venue is acceptable based on cost...
> >>
> >> So, it's tolerable to have the travel costs, time and/or effort be
> >> prohibitively high and/or difficult?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * The venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining...
> >>
> >> The challenge in downgrading this has already been noted.
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Travel barriers and visa requirements...
> >>
> >> So, it's tolerable to have travel barriers and visa requirements be
> >> UNacceptable?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Economic, safety, health...
> >>
> >> So, going to dangerous, horribly expensive environments, rife with
> >> outbreaks of pandemics is tolerable?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Facility support technology and services...
> >>
> >> How, exactly, are we doing to have a successful meeting if this is not
> >> a mandatory requirement?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Facility directly provides or permits...
> >>
> >> Same question.
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit...
> >>
> >> Same question.
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) are sufficient...
> >>
> >> Same question.
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * The Venue environs, which includes both onsite, as...
> >>
> >> Sam question.
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * A range of attendee's health-related and religion...
> >>
> >> So we are back to deciding that it's acceptable to have folk with
> >> special dietary requirements have to bring a week's worth of food with
> >> them to the meeting (or to have to travel long distances from the
> >> venue, in order to eat)?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract...
> >>
> >> It will be tolerable to have no overflow hotels under contract or to
> >> have them be a long way away from the meeting venue?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * The Venue environs include budget hotels within...
> >>
> >> The goal of inclusivity will not be significantly damaged if there are
> >> not budget hotels or they are distant from the venue (meaning long and
> >> maybe expensive transit both ways)?
> >>
> >>
> >>>   * There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars, meeting
> >>>     rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc conversations and
> >>>     group discussions.
> >>>     (This last one is split out from a Mandatory)
> >>
> >> Given how often and vigorously complains when this is not satisfied,
> >> what will make it tolerable, going forward?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mtgvenue mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>
>