Re: [Mtgvenue] comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 30/01/17 16:14, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 1/30/2017 7:57 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> On 30/01/17 15:34, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> On 1/30/2017 4:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>>> So how about emphasising more that this section is a guideline
>>>> that's expected to evolve,
> ...
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> A number of your suggestions show this kind of basis:  Things might
>>> change and we should say something about that.
>>>
>>> In specification-writing terms, this has no utility.
> ...
>> In any case, I disagree about section 5 - my suggestion has
>> the substantive statement that the IAOC would publish the
>> ways in which they're diverging from the text there and that
>> the community get to say what they/we think of that. You
>> may consider that solely a form of entertainment, I do not.
> 
> 
> Having the IAOC document how a particular venue selection has diverged
> from the existing specification 

I think that'd be useful. But I was suggesting that the IAOC
document how their algorithm/processes (as outlined in section 5)
change over time.

> is quite different from a suggestion
> that the specification contain language noting that things might change
> (at some unknown point in the future and in some unknown ways.)
> 
> My comment was about the several points in your original note that were
> of the latter type.

I'm not sure how you got that from the text you quoted.
But that's ok, if we agree that section 5 needs some work
along the above lines (or to otherwise solve the issue)

S.

> 
> d/
> 
> 
> 
>