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

On 4/11/2017 2:21 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 12/04/2017 06:12, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/17 8:03 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>>> What about something along the lines of, "The venue appears to be
>>> consistent with the bounds of the budget for the meeting"?
>>>
>> I don't see a problem with that sort of text, but let me ask this
>> question: has there ever been a meeting where that WASN'T true?
> And why are we even discussing this? IASA has the responsibility
> for managing the budget, including any tradeoffs between various
> meetings. That doesn't need micro-managing by RFC text.

For me the driver is for the community to provide some direction on
meeting expenses so that the IAOC doesn't have the freedom to choose
meeting locations that end up resulting with the community paying even
higher bills. I've talked with folks who have said meeting costs are
already driving away (their) participation and don't want to see it get
worse.  Capturing the gist of this is certainly hard. The no-loss on a
meeting was a way of covering this concern to some degree.  Andrew's
language is IMO compromise that at least keeps the topic of expenses as
part of the decision making process.

Lou

>     Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> Mtgvenue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>