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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/5/2017 12:18 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> Dave, Eliot,
> 
> Seems to me like you're using different semantics for the same
> label.
> 
> A: Eliot: ""mandatory" means "it's impossible to have a successful;
> meeting unless the criterion is met."
> 
> B: Dave: "What dropping this item does is to move it from being an
> exception requiring community review to something the IAOC can decide
> without community review. " which I think is equivalent to saying
> that "mandatory" means "MUST unless community informed and ok with
> not meeting the criterion."

Here's what Important authorizes:

       It can be traded against other Important items

My text that you quote derives from this authorizing statement.  The 
IAOC is authorized to do tradeoffs, which means it is authorized to 
choose not to satisfy one or another of these requirements.  Hence the 
very specific questions I've annotated, for each of the items proposed 
for a change in status.

As for seeking exceptions, I merely noted a reality that has been used 
more than once:  When there is a desire to hold a meeting that does not 
conform to the considerable list of community expectations -- demands, 
actually -- the community has been asked to provide comment and the IAOC 
has decided whether to make an exception.

The problem with taking 'mandatory' to be a requirement for mathematical 
perfection that does not permit exception is that, unfortunately, humans 
can sometimes tolerate exceptions where mathematical formula don't.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net