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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Pete.  This sounds perfect.

Lou


On 4/5/2017 5:36 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> 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