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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Dave,

I think this goes to the heart of what "mandatory" means.  Editorially,
the sense I got of the room (or at least the implication) that matches
the directive to downgrade was that "mandatory" means "it's impossible
to have a successful; meeting unless the criteria is met."  Thus the
agreement on the need to argue the reverse of what you listed: what is
the justification for this requirement being mandatory?

Eliot


On 4/5/17 7:42 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/5/2017 6:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> As mentioned by the chair, I am downgrading requirements based on
>> working group discussion, mostly from Mandatory to Important.  As a
>> reminder, the words are intended to be used consistent with their
>> plain meaning.  That is- just because something is now Important
>> specifically does not mean that it is UNimportant.
>
> While it's understandable to wish for a shorter list, the realities of
> what this community keeps insisting on is what produced the current set.
>
> For each item that folk propose to drop, we should carefully discuss
> the history that produced it and the likely community reaction if the
> requirement is not met, going forward.
>
>
>>  From Mandatory to Important:
>
> So this means that any of these items can be traded-off against some
> other item.  That means that for each one, it can be acceptable not to
> satisfy the 'requirement'.
>
> Note that there is always the ability to seek exceptions to any
> requirement.  What dropping this item does is to move it from being an
> exception requiring community review to something the IAOC can decide
> without community review.
>
>
> Consider...
>
>
>>   * Travel to venue is acceptable based on cost...
>
> So, it's tolerable to have the travel costs, time and/or effort be
> prohibitively high and/or difficult?
>
>
>>   * The venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining...
>
> The challenge in downgrading this has already been noted.
>
>
>>   * Travel barriers and visa requirements...
>
> So, it's tolerable to have travel barriers and visa requirements be
> UNacceptable?
>
>
>>   * Economic, safety, health...
>
> So, going to dangerous, horribly expensive environments, rife with
> outbreaks of pandemics is tolerable?
>
>
>>   * Facility support technology and services...
>
> How, exactly, are we doing to have a successful meeting if this is not
> a mandatory requirement?
>
>
>>   * Facility directly provides or permits...
>
> Same question.
>
>
>>   * The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit...
>
> Same question.
>
>
>>   * The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) are sufficient...
>
> Same question.
>
>
>>   * The Venue environs, which includes both onsite, as...
>
> Sam question.
>
>
>>   * A range of attendee's health-related and religion...
>
> So we are back to deciding that it's acceptable to have folk with
> special dietary requirements have to bring a week's worth of food with
> them to the meeting (or to have to travel long distances from the
> venue, in order to eat)?
>
>
>>   * Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract...
>
> It will be tolerable to have no overflow hotels under contract or to
> have them be a long way away from the meeting venue?
>
>
>>   * The Venue environs include budget hotels within...
>
> The goal of inclusivity will not be significantly damaged if there are
> not budget hotels or they are distant from the venue (meaning long and
> maybe expensive transit both ways)?
>
>
>>   * There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars, meeting
>>     rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc conversations and
>>     group discussions.
>>     (This last one is split out from a Mandatory)
>
> Given how often and vigorously complains when this is not satisfied,
> what will make it tolerable, going forward?
>
>
>
> d/
>