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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Apr 2017, at 17:25, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 4/5/2017 3:02 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2017, at 16:02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>
>>> "move or cancel" is language that only has meaning /after/ 
>>> selection. It is therefore formally out of scope.
>>
>> Whoa there! Dave, it is not your call that this (or anything) is 
>> formally out of scope.
>
> That's a style of objection that we do frequently in the IETF and 
> misses the distinction between authority and ability.

I believe this style of objection, stating the conclusion as fact 
instead of stating it as an opinion, and particularly when it comes to a 
matter of WG process, is chilling to productive discussion and 
disruptive of WG process. As a way to suppress discussion, it is 
incredibly effective. I do think it is used far too often in the IETF. 
I'm requesting that it not be used in this group in the future.

> Any of us can raise the question.  I'm raising it.

I will take your objection as saying, "I believe that the word 
'selection' in the charter means that discussion should be limited to 
things prior to contracting, and that discussion of 'move or cancel' 
should be considered out of scope."

>> As I said at the f2f meeting, the charter is not crystal clear on 
>> this point:
>>
>>> The MTGVENUE working group is the forum where the IETF community can
>>> discuss and agree on what should go into the policies, the selection
>>> process, and the detailed criteria going forward. All criteria and 
>>> all
>>> other aspects of the process are open for discussion.
>
> Again, all of the language is about the selection process.  It says 
> nothing about contracting or canceling or any other part of the venue 
> process as being within scope.

The above text says that the WG is to discuss and agree on what goes 
into three things: policies, selection process, and detailed criteria 
going forward. I read those as three separate items and not solely about 
the selection process.

>> As Alissa said at the meeting, the charter is flexible enough to 
>> allow the WG to write a document that can be applied only at the 
>> beginning of the process, or might be applied at multiple points.
>
> Where is this sort of flexibility justified in the charter?

I take Alissa to have read the same text that I did. She can further 
clarify if she desires.

> ps. Again, the ultimate issue is that going beyond the specifics of 
> /selection/ conflates things in a way that is already adding 
> significant complexity to the discussion.

I believe the complexity was already in the discussion, but hidden 
behind people having different definitions in their heads of the same 
word. Insofar as we end up identifying items that people believed all 
along were in the "considerations for move or cancel" category, I 
believe that reduces the complexity of the discussion. We may decide to 
remove those items from the final document, or we may decide that for 
all of the criteria, we should give guidance as to how they should be 
applied if something changes after contracting. Either way, clearly 
separating out people's reasons for wanting any particular criteria in 
the document is incredibly helpful to me, as one of the people who has 
to make the call in the end of what the WG intended.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]