Re: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrew,

> Large issue 1: many categories

Really? That's only an issue of document organisation.
Personally I think it's more readable arranged the way it is,
by topic. YMMV.

> Large issue 2: Too much mandatory & in the passive voice
...
> The problem is, if I am evaluating that, I don't know what "is
> acceptable" means. 

But that is the whole point. Most of the 'mandatory' items are
in fact judgment calls. So it's mandatory to make the call, but
it's made by the IAOC (on the recommendation of the meetings
committee, presumably). And yes, most of the criteria we've
identified are in that category. That's a good sign, IMHO,
because it means that we aren't wasting time on minor issues.

Personally, I'd be fine if the criteria were not qualified
as mandatory/important/desired at all. It would save argument
and change very little or nothing.

> Large issue 3: Process innovation
...
>    By the same token, Venue decisions
>    are not themselves subject to IETF consensus, and are instead
>    decisions taken by the IAOC.

To me that is implicit, but it's a fine addition to avoid doubt.

Regards
   Brian