Re: [Mtgvenue] What does "mandatory mean?"

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
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 8B06F12A035 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 K541ZvSX7ijj for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B0BC129646 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id e4so30086435pfg.0 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xB1LbJyebDGlGb00/D4P+0JS3mINPJUVQl7eXpJLti4=; b=AmFhdiSWUxSMGy6INfcALtBE6n+pyagKAcMocCt164a1w3AuKVvTvZHZdYEE41ge0T 4lR8GXwZAB1QPKG4kfQTVewHu3AWxiN9HcNpnQ7sse3ZT0zw46d+a7KSQeoz5Iz/rqia F4Xbr5K6UWmMU3xaQ76UIMTkm6xjxH1Qj7xDC/NXATKvGJUMU5sBwc8thztwuN2tB219 mMrMHba9wb15PZXtDMNooglmr7HKPnVu2tCEJ3Sq2ecLXNibQtwvySuQ3Sq1CjgYOzwd SxVRGhm5kuMqS5LgFWgfUu3IqxJLrWDF6kf5wf4Go2eCni0zXhdN0J7NSHMoleguOmnq M2Ig==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xB1LbJyebDGlGb00/D4P+0JS3mINPJUVQl7eXpJLti4=; b=A9Rh2JKbklUro3JNTL6qgay6DgR/YTqcElniCAvDZqIqOfeSZYWv0785OtRbpnk/tX TjF/NaKeIKx03yPboGPBQK90wYSEekUBzasljt6twLGZnjXcfDFYrTS/eVeYgJI1ziDv Q2En9sXIY/ACGbmfihNfz0e0vQvlRCmmCCeYl2NoAFYLNwNvgzkxEDZLc8LfZYfDrS8v mI1EkFtJ89YOHRs06TMyMeF5J265fdkSJdT+mHuOXIe5Ikj69pjaKea0YyYrMp5uV3sF v8eL8k3zzHU/1XCUphECnCwtCdqJkd5gnhgs176KmazZiOYvMkB7LKqCr57gn+QcqlD1 oxYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXKJxh6mMhpZ7+FB3IDiJo/aTs9QpyvRusU5M1V2Op0FYxIKIBNiADpaB6jA5zrgHQ==
X-Received: by 10.98.89.195 with SMTP id k64mr31797453pfj.126.1485904249718; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (wsip-184-191-158-59.sd.sd.cox.net. [184.191.158.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm43745209pfb.36.2017.01.31.15.10.48 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47488b7f-29f0-f082-c3c0-8dc201c5dea7@nomountain.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <26F353A7-BCF3-4EDE-895A-C4768DAC5920@gmail.com>
References: <20170131010548.GL47762@mx2.yitter.info> <de401360-8827-c427-19fe-ace8d2987f40@gmail.com> <20170131040757.GM47762@mx2.yitter.info> <2c957e0e-999f-f8a2-3a61-3aff3606b087@dcrocker.net> <20170131152139.GC53056@mx2.yitter.info> <47488b7f-29f0-f082-c3c0-8dc201c5dea7@nomountain.net>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/Jr1Hh7hp7GE9G5JJqGo8ElFuqLk>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] What does "mandatory mean?"
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:10:51 -0000

On Jan 31, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> wrote:
> It's clear that one of the problems underlying our inability
> to come to agreement on some of the requirements is that
> there's not agreement about what "mandatory" means in the
> context of this document.  It seems that some people see
> "mandatory" (and other requirements language) as applying
> to the venue under consideration, and others see "mandatory"
> as applying to the IAOC meeting committee's evaluation
> process.  To be honest, in the current draft I read it as
> applying to the venue.

I wrote the original text. It was intended, at the time, to mean that the consideration in question had to be true of the venue at the time that the meetings committee was asking the question. If it was necessary that the venue be in the same country as an airport, for example, and a venue being proposed wasn't, the meetings committee could drop the venue from consideration. This was based on the original purpose of the document, which was to guide the meetings committee in its evaluation of possible venues.

Things that could be traded off against each other, by that rubric, could not be "mandatory". Anything that required judgement could be unsatisfied if other circumstances justified the trade-off.

My sense at the moment is that the intended use of the document has migrated quite a bit. We seem to be discussing IAOC deliberations (which take the meetings committee recommendation as an input), and in at least one provision have asked that it be reviewed very close to the actual meeting date. This gives me concern, as I find myself wondering whether venues exist that actually meet all of the "mandatory" criteria. I know that in our analysis, nearly a year ago, we backed away from some criteria that would have been nice to consider "mandatory", because they seemed difficult to satisfy in all of the regions in which we try to have meetings.

As a thought experiment, it might be interesting for people involved in this discussion look around their regions and identify the potential venues that would be acceptable. If we have such in each region, so be it, but if we don't, on what points do venues fail?