Re: [Mtgvenue] What does "mandatory mean?"

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 31 January 2017 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44BC129646 for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AyxgTnbRhnXF for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x243.google.com (mail-pf0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::243]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AA37129650 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x243.google.com with SMTP id 19so30125972pfo.3 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xB1LbJyebDGlGb00/D4P+0JS3mINPJUVQl7eXpJLti4=; b=iY6k1uyse5oY3ouFeP66DSrDS/HJhPcONqn9g+whO6ByL4mfVtjDeXoxgY8dHAe87h DWUjJ5V9yU4npuB6c1J+o/WuPOvIK5+jbE1sLtLBWI2+ToEqntwSCiZ/eJvoFm4YygIU lIdgTwdXSDcKNPbDdPmRsJ58/eJHZ2ESEQsY7H1qo9DetMzMNOXmBJ8C6PBqdigSyKqk jamKasR85l67EfQ6T8VzHuL/qKyxXl3/Q7+R4bYM6kc9syHpr3Aqoc09PJY2nOKVOt7i C5Iy8uCzaqN5TXmYatk1iX22OzrftXig2S/k7DNHhPY5olQRaqYWNhLJrYL/KzP7ewG7 UmjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=xB1LbJyebDGlGb00/D4P+0JS3mINPJUVQl7eXpJLti4=; b=jxaQvXr2/CGe9cXNdXdTRRI/LD0q8PoBGQzb8WO1/6MTxGMHDbQdZOI0L1rvUiG8IW SlmNBUdG8FqMWBlRpdQq5IPQrJzSJbaFCSCGYP/wnQO2huJVoyJxP75SEUUHkeLOP7g8 KZOFEgQK7NqSsBT58Ztlxo2NW5q0gUVXzkeC6vkodKe+GU96qHz/GagItiCICxSXMyGe Cfq1iL3LRJ2TVmn5sq8+SMWzGxIuEg8Hdd71R2XE7kztF18vzJLEZwzBBY8WcOaOze2l 9ZYk8jTqQv9jporR/lQK3ZFJmid1bXfuVASnCKWPEbGQ/1oW06IQX4Vgru066RyF9YNL LJ8A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJUz7oXYxXzJimhf79hbnzUhC8n9KnhZmLMiquK2rOYIOtoHqbsfMR+jZKVhWK1aA==
X-Received: by 10.98.93.152 with SMTP id n24mr32103123pfj.107.1485904248153; Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (wsip-184-191-158-59.sd.sd.cox.net. [184.191.158.59]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v4sm43745209pfb.36.2017.01.31.15.10.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:47 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <47488b7f-29f0-f082-c3c0-8dc201c5dea7@nomountain.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:45 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B337A44-8126-4B1F-80E6-6B5ECDEE6281@gmail.com>
References: <20170131010548.GL47762@mx2.yitter.info> <de401360-8827-c427-19fe-ace8d2987f40@gmail.com> <20170131040757.GM47762@mx2.yitter.info> <2c957e0e-999f-f8a2-3a61-3aff3606b087@dcrocker.net> <20170131152139.GC53056@mx2.yitter.info> <47488b7f-29f0-f082-c3c0-8dc201c5dea7@nomountain.net>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/i1zRg0MuXjE-muhGK3Foeh46z9E>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] What does "mandatory mean?"
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for email discussion of the IAOC meeting venue selection process." <mtgvenue.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mtgvenue/>
List-Post: <mailto:mtgvenue@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue>, <mailto:mtgvenue-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:10:50 -0000

On Jan 31, 2017, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@nomountain.net> wrote:
> It's clear that one of the problems underlying our inability
> to come to agreement on some of the requirements is that
> there's not agreement about what "mandatory" means in the
> context of this document.  It seems that some people see
> "mandatory" (and other requirements language) as applying
> to the venue under consideration, and others see "mandatory"
> as applying to the IAOC meeting committee's evaluation
> process.  To be honest, in the current draft I read it as
> applying to the venue.

I wrote the original text. It was intended, at the time, to mean that the consideration in question had to be true of the venue at the time that the meetings committee was asking the question. If it was necessary that the venue be in the same country as an airport, for example, and a venue being proposed wasn't, the meetings committee could drop the venue from consideration. This was based on the original purpose of the document, which was to guide the meetings committee in its evaluation of possible venues.

Things that could be traded off against each other, by that rubric, could not be "mandatory". Anything that required judgement could be unsatisfied if other circumstances justified the trade-off.

My sense at the moment is that the intended use of the document has migrated quite a bit. We seem to be discussing IAOC deliberations (which take the meetings committee recommendation as an input), and in at least one provision have asked that it be reviewed very close to the actual meeting date. This gives me concern, as I find myself wondering whether venues exist that actually meet all of the "mandatory" criteria. I know that in our analysis, nearly a year ago, we backed away from some criteria that would have been nice to consider "mandatory", because they seemed difficult to satisfy in all of the regions in which we try to have meetings.

As a thought experiment, it might be interesting for people involved in this discussion look around their regions and identify the potential venues that would be acceptable. If we have such in each region, so be it, but if we don't, on what points do venues fail?