IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Wed, 05 April 2017 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A05F1294B5 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dcrocker.net
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 yusJg7oCufTk for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9442A126FB3 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v35N2fvG026604 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 5 Apr 2017 16:02:41 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1491433362; bh=RUSWLvSKKKKYbpEfU41tpfEbHLNW4nzcE1/sVTiQz4k=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=qQuwUsxpVRtZkFvnEiGup0MPxGfn2Z+zPGv9A2q5ibxp3uhlGwgccQHdTJZ4dUvgI Oe/sLekR8vfLD/Ylu11se+Xs1ZjTWHG3IMEZ4oUocgi/hkxz+W/l283PA6HkryCWWp 3VumKo7yFXvMlM7vY4/RHoZXimn/I+q5VdyGReeI=
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com> <7add7c4a-032f-6b78-5b5f-861835a64f9a@dcrocker.net> <006325a5-83e7-9295-71a1-67c0125aa7cb@cisco.com> <c57adf52-3db7-5cfc-d301-3135010e17c6@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMA7iQrMg2y6g5=i96HL3-_8X04BsQjZEhzWe++uZzJvmQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170405201813.GF3439@mx4.yitter.info> <CAHw9_iLp_AbWRK7K+BHU5XuN3kYTsa3hazxRkhpOr2WFpm+PDw@mail.gmail.com> <20170405224355.GA4860@mx4.yitter.info> <0a910dc2-a3b3-d027-0ee5-6f761eda1903@dcrocker.net> <20170405225427.GB4860@mx4.yitter.info>
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <f2103e46-3854-b001-578d-fb3a7b42f7d8@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:00:24 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170405225427.GB4860@mx4.yitter.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/AXv3Ao8kQ6q5XyDq4RNPYBMpCac>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 23:00:38 -0000

On 4/5/2017 3:54 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 03:50:36PM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>> I do not recall seeing you respond this point of practical concern.
> 
> I believe, Dave, that we have already agreed that we disagree about
> this, so I don't think I will engage with you on the topic either on
> or off the list.


I don't recall agreeing to that.

When one proposes something, there is usually an affirmative obligation 
to justify it.  In this case, the simple form of the challenge is:  How 
will that work, in actual practice?

And yes, I've noticed that you won't engage on this point. Perhaps 
pragmatics don't matter here.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email