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

[Lou Berger <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 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.


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.

Lou

> Still looking in the Meetecho recording for the section that speaks to 
> your substantive point. (Gee, transcription service would be nice.)
>
> pr