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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/5/2017 6:40 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> As mentioned by the chair, I am downgrading requirements based on 
> working group discussion, mostly from Mandatory to Important.  As a 
> reminder, the words are intended to be used consistent with their plain 
> meaning.  That is- just because something is now Important specifically 
> does not mean that it is UNimportant.

While it's understandable to wish for a shorter list, the realities of 
what this community keeps insisting on is what produced the current set.

For each item that folk propose to drop, we should carefully discuss the 
history that produced it and the likely community reaction if the 
requirement is not met, going forward.


>  From Mandatory to Important:

So this means that any of these items can be traded-off against some 
other item.  That means that for each one, it can be acceptable not to 
satisfy the 'requirement'.

Note that there is always the ability to seek exceptions to any 
requirement.  What dropping this item does is to move it from being an 
exception requiring community review to something the IAOC can decide 
without community review.


Consider...


>   * Travel to venue is acceptable based on cost...

So, it's tolerable to have the travel costs, time and/or effort be 
prohibitively high and/or difficult?


>   * The venue is assessed as favorable for obtaining...

The challenge in downgrading this has already been noted.


>   * Travel barriers and visa requirements...

So, it's tolerable to have travel barriers and visa requirements be 
UNacceptable?


>   * Economic, safety, health...

So, going to dangerous, horribly expensive environments, rife with 
outbreaks of pandemics is tolerable?


>   * Facility support technology and services...

How, exactly, are we doing to have a successful meeting if this is not a 
mandatory requirement?


>   * Facility directly provides or permits...

Same question.


>   * The IETF Hotel(s) directly provide, or else permit...

Same question.


>   * The guest rooms at the IETF Hotel(s) are sufficient...

Same question.


>   * The Venue environs, which includes both onsite, as...

Sam question.


>   * A range of attendee's health-related and religion...

So we are back to deciding that it's acceptable to have folk with 
special dietary requirements have to bring a week's worth of food with 
them to the meeting (or to have to travel long distances from the venue, 
in order to eat)?


>   * Overflow Hotels can be placed under contract...

It will be tolerable to have no overflow hotels under contract or to 
have them be a long way away from the meeting venue?


>   * The Venue environs include budget hotels within...

The goal of inclusivity will not be significantly damaged if there are 
not budget hotels or they are distant from the venue (meaning long and 
maybe expensive transit both ways)?


>   * There are sufficient places (e.g., a mix of hallways, bars, meeting
>     rooms, and restaurants) for people to hold ad hoc conversations and
>     group discussions.
>     (This last one is split out from a Mandatory)

Given how often and vigorously complains when this is not satisfied, 
what will make it tolerable, going forward?



d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net