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

[Pete Resnick <[e-mail]>]

On 5 Apr 2017, at 16:27, Lou Berger wrote:

> Pete,
>
>     Thanks for the response.
>
>
> On 4/5/2017 3:31 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2017, at 11:44, Lou Berger wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/5/2017 12:02 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>>> This one gets removed based on comments in the room.
>>>>
>>> I don't mind being in the minority / the rough, but I think it
>>> reasonable for us to follow rfc2418 in this discussion.
>> I would take Eliot's sentence to mean, "Based on what was said in the
>> f2f room in Chicago, this is to be removed. Speak up if you 
>> disagree."
>
> Well I wanted to get more info and to understand before rehashing what
> was discussed.  As this wasn't minuted (but I didn't listen to the
> recording) I thought asking before disagreeing made sense.  Depending 
> on
> the rationale/conclusion I may even agree.

Yeah, I do wish this point was captured in the minutes. I have to admit: 
I *think* I know what the rationale was, but I don't want to say until I 
review the Meetecho because I had a discussion outside of the session 
about this topic where I expressed my own opinion, and I'm not 
completely sure that I haven't mashed the two in my head. Bad form for 
the chair to let their own opinion get in like that. :-)

>> In particular, I would not interpret it to mean, "This is absolutely 
>> the
>> consensus of the WG, therefore it will be removed and we are done 
>> with
>> this topic."
>
> Fair enough.  Given the brevity of the response -- This is basically 
> how
> I read it.
>
>>  So I think we are following regular 2418 order here.
>
> Great.  My hope  is to see (quoting here)
>
>    Decisions reached during a face-to-face meeting about
>    topics or issues which have not been discussed on the mailing list,
>    or are significantly different from previously arrived mailing list
>    consensus MUST be reviewed on the mailing list.

You bet. The chairs are absolutely committed to that principle.

> Specifically, I think it's reasonable to explain on the list  the
> rational for basically saying the it's okay to plan for a meeting that
> will operate at a loss discussed.

Yep. Unless Charles or Eliot (or for that matter, anyone else on the 
list who can do so) gets to it first, I'll post a summary of that part 
of the discussion once I get unburied from day-job things.

pr
-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - [phone]