Re: [Mtgvenue] Issue resolution (Was: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-07.txt)

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Hi Stephen,

I agree with both you and Brian that the current text is quite loose
with the terms, but it's probably worth a bit more than a substitution. 
People blew up all over the IAOC for one particular decision, because
most people beyond those who play Inside Baseball actually understand
the difference between the IASA, IAD, and the IAOC.  And so some
explanation is needed, and I'm a little concerned about getting too much
into the IAOC's business in this draft, lest they reorganize themselves
(say, with IASA 2.0) and then have to update this draft again (which I
will bet NO ONE will want to do).  And so, as best we can I wonder if
the right thing to do is to use some words like "the IAOC MUST see
that..." {$X} (happens/doesn't happen).

Eliot

On 6/7/17 8:54 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> On 07/06/17 03:17, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> - Issue 20, "s/IASA/IAOC?" (which is actually titled backwards, since
>> the suggestion was to change IAOC to IASA pretty much throughout): Not
>> enough to go on.
> I think Brian has a good point there - the draft is describing
> stuff intended to be overseen by the IAOC but that is perceived
> to be done by the IAOC. It's not clear to me which of those the
> members of the IAOC and it's committees consider to be the case
> in practice.
>
> So I reckon yes it'd be correct to make the substitution.
>
> That will however make the draft harder to understand for all of
> us who've forgotten the IASA acronym, but who (like me;-) have
> and recall others having whined at the IAOC periodically, so I'd
> also be fine with just adding text that explains that when we say
> IAOC in this draft, we maybe mean IASA, and that that contradiction
> is being considered elsewhere.
>
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue