Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 31/01/2017 17:07, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 02:31:13PM +1300, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>
>> Really? That's only an issue of document organisation.
>> Personally I think it's more readable arranged the way it is,
>> by topic. YMMV.
> 
> I don't actually care about readability.  I care about utility in
> decision-making (as I noted in the preamble to my note), and this
> organization is impenetrable for that
> 
>> But that is the whole point. Most of the 'mandatory' items are
>> in fact judgment calls. So it's mandatory to make the call, but
>> it's made by the IAOC (on the recommendation of the meetings
>> committee, presumably). And yes, most of the criteria we've
>> identified are in that category. That's a good sign, IMHO,
>> because it means that we aren't wasting time on minor issues.
> 
> This is a completely absurd meaning of "mandatory" (and not the one in
> the document).  It's not that it's mandatory to make the call, but
> rather that if the criterion cannot be satisfied then the meeting is
> not to be held there.  It's perfectly clear in the text:
> 
>    Mandatory:
>       If this requirement cannot be met, a location under consideration
>       is unacceptable.  We walk away.

Yes, but since they are all judgment calls this is actually meaningless.
If the IAOC has to consider both Timbuktu and Ulaanbaatar, they can
decide that the visa rules for Timbuktu are acceptable, and those for
Ulaanbaatar are unacceptable. Or the opposite. In effect, what I said
is the case: it's making the judgment call that's the MUST. After that,
the decisions follow automatically.

   Brian

>>>    By the same token, Venue decisions
>>>    are not themselves subject to IETF consensus, and are instead
>>>    decisions taken by the IAOC.
>>
>> To me that is implicit, but it's a fine addition to avoid doubt.
> 
> Well, if that's what we mean by this, then I think the entire point of
> the associated text is lost and it should all be removed.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> A
>