IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Mtgvenue] Priority order: (was: Re: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04)

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Mon, 30 January 2017 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 4093412951F for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=dcrocker.net
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 jxpJAb6VGtdS for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A329C129527 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id v0UFfhgK027878 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:41:44 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dcrocker.net; s=default; t=1485790904; bh=DtfHBfIdDqHwbOF0mZ3X+EtHwKRrUT9OoDbECivbtMM=; h=Subject:To:References:Reply-To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=F8Ux2ITK4hANF1+dojqAH6sQRuJ1thLdmrZULEgQXum1ju4go3zYGazfA+XMsvj6A Gz7G0OEV9BKYzK9xygzOLsS+Da1iu0gIFKOo3ptFKwwfs0gQ47ES4VEBSYVK9omHbY mPuXDQ3u67MNf6MjMdG6HoRil6TAx130KHD2S3QA=
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, mtgvenue@ietf.org
References: <9139334c-9c5e-814d-4299-c6f5950039b8@cs.tcd.ie> <2dcdf5d1-4e93-7476-79ba-0369e41af1c0@cisco.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <8cfa8a35-b805-a9f3-6570-a8c71a44c5d3@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 07:40:00 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2dcdf5d1-4e93-7476-79ba-0369e41af1c0@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/k9VeOHuxjbZJ4r7F5ro7iDrQ0jA>
Subject: [Mtgvenue] Priority order: (was: Re: comments on draft-ietf-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-04)
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:40:15 -0000

On 1/30/2017 1:17 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> My nit is slightly different.  I'd suggest the list be ordered from
> mandatory downward.


Why?  First, there are very few entries that aren't mandatory.  Second, 
priority ordering will have no effect.

Priority ordering presumes that the decision process will carefully 
attend to the relative priorities.  That is actually a very difficult 
cognitive task to perform accurately and reliably, and especially so for 
a group rather than an individual.

Venue selection decision-making is not nearly as mechanical as 
priority-ordering requires. Nor can it be.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email