Re: [Mtgvenue] Where we are, post #2

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/30/2017 3:40 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> The only problem with this text is that "a range" isn't defined, and
> would not be sufficient to clue in a clueless IAOC.   It will do fine if
> the IAOC _isn't_ clueless.   I don't know if we can do much better than
> this in a document of this sort, but I hope no-one imagines that this
> text guarantees a successful outcome.


In terms of IAOC decision-making, it's difficult to imagine that the 
added words -- or rather, the words being proposed to drop -- would give 
meaningful, additional guidance.  So I think the concern you raise is 
present with either form of the entry.  (Not that you implied otherwise; 
I'm just trying to be thorough...)

It's also difficult to imagine that any finite amount of additional 
language would provide meaningful detail that would be sufficiently 
complete to be useful, or that we could develop it in finite time.

So, yeah, no guarantees.  But the utility of the entry is that it 
targets a basic issue and makes dealing with it a requirement.  Where 
the only 'detail' is mandates is that the combination of nearby grocery 
and onsite service handle a wide range of dietary needs.

d/


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net