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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/17 20:28, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/5/2017 12:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>> Dave, Eliot,
>>
>> Seems to me like you're using different semantics for the same
>> label.
>>
>> A: Eliot: ""mandatory" means "it's impossible to have a successful;
>> meeting unless the criterion is met."
>>
>> B: Dave: "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. " which I think is equivalent to saying
>> that "mandatory" means "MUST unless community informed and ok with
>> not meeting the criterion."
> 
> Here's what Important authorizes:
> 
>       It can be traded against other Important items
> 
> My text that you quote derives from this authorizing statement.  The
> IAOC is authorized to do tradeoffs, which means it is authorized to
> choose not to satisfy one or another of these requirements.  Hence the
> very specific questions I've annotated, for each of the items proposed
> for a change in status.
> 
> As for seeking exceptions, I merely noted a reality that has been used
> more than once:  When there is a desire to hold a meeting that does not
> conform to the considerable list of community expectations -- demands,
> actually -- the community has been asked to provide comment and the IAOC
> has decided whether to make an exception.
> 
> The problem with taking 'mandatory' to be a requirement for mathematical
> perfection that does not permit exception is that, unfortunately, humans
> can sometimes tolerate exceptions where mathematical formula don't.

Nah, the difference between A and B is neither a mathematical
nicety nor a subtle human frailty - they're just different concepts
that ought be labelled differently. I reckon that A is not very
useful here but that B could well be quite a useful distinction
for this document. I'd encourage the editor to ponder whether
re-casting the requirements in terms of (some label for) B might
make the whole thing more clear. (And even maybe avoid a future
kerfuffle or two:-)

Cheers,
S.



> 
> 
> d/
>