Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/30/2017 8:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 02:31:13PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> Really? That's only an issue of document organisation.
>> Personally I think it's more readable arranged the way it is,
>> by topic. YMMV.
>
> I don't actually care about readability.  I care about utility in
> decision-making (as I noted in the preamble to my note), and this
> organization is impenetrable for that

The current organization aggregates related items.  Related by topic, 
which is what the category labels indicate.  This permits reviewing them 
together, to see how they cover their category.

Organizing things by level of requirement is remarkably unhelpful. 
Imagine, please if we wrote protocols specifications, with all of the 
MUSTs together, then all of the SHOULDs, then all of the MAYs, rather 
than putting things together that are related to the same semantic 
aspect of the protocol.

So no, not impenetrable.  Practical.

{Small procedural nit:  You've raised this issue at least twice before 
(July and November) and got quite a lot of discussion, but little-to-no 
supporting traction.  On the average, the IETF frowns on persistently 
re-raising issues that have been previously considered, absent new 
information about them.)


>> But that is the whole point. Most of the 'mandatory' items are
>> in fact judgment calls. So it's mandatory to make the call, but
>> it's made by the IAOC (on the recommendation of the meetings
>> committee, presumably). And yes, most of the criteria we've
>> identified are in that category. That's a good sign, IMHO,
>> because it means that we aren't wasting time on minor issues.
>
> This is a completely absurd meaning of "mandatory" (and not the one in
> the document).  It's not that it's mandatory to make the call, but
> rather that if the criterion cannot be satisfied then the meeting is
> not to be held there.  It's perfectly clear in the text:
>
>    Mandatory:
>       If this requirement cannot be met, a location under consideration
>       is unacceptable.  We walk away.

Requiring due diligence about specific issues is quite common when 
writing requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is... absurd. 
  As for possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the document: 
  In some cases getting the necessary information is problematic.  So we 
don't go there.  Again, not absurd.

d/

-- 
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net