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>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/Jr1Hh7hp7GE9G5JJqGo8ElFuqLk>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] What does "mandatory mean?"
Precedence: list


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?=20=