Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

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

On 01/02/2017 04:21, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
> If I understood Brian, he thinks that it'd be ok for the IAOC under
> those circumstances to say, "Well, yeah, the cost is outside the norms
> we have, but we thought about it so the criterion is satisfied."  I
> don't see how that comports with "requirement can[not] be met", but
> perhaps Brian can say more.

That's exactly the problem. The criterion itself is worded so that the
the IAOC has to make a judgment (in the case you cited, "is $X a night
affordable?"). So they think about it and decide that $500 is affordable,
because if they decided it was too much, the venue would be excluded.

Then the IETF's only recourse is the NomCom.

> In my reading, the requirement is a hard one and the IAOC must be able
> to say, "Yes, we have positive information that the conditions match
> this requirement at the time we selected the Venue."  If IAOC members
> cannot satisfy themselves of that, then "we walk away."  This is part
> of why I am very far from convinced that all of the Mandatory list
> items ought to be on that list.

Now there, I think, we agree. It isn't the criterion that's wrong. It's
that by giving it the label "mandatory" we distort the decision process,
perversely giving the IAOC an incentive to decide that $500 is affordable,
or we can't go to Timbuktu.

Obviously I chose an absurd price level to illustrate the point, but the
combination of "mandatory" and a judgment call will be tricky in any case.
We probably can't duck it in every case, but mandatory requirements that
depend on judgment calls need to be kept to a strict minimum.

    Brian