[Mtgvenue] meta-terms (was: Re: Comments on draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-02)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 6/21/2016 9:49 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
> Similarly, 3.1.1 contains a mix of criteria and requirements for
> meetings committee operation. For example, for every city under
> consideration, the meetings committee can research and carefully
> consider health risks. That is not a criteria. It doesn't differentiate
> between cities. It just tells the meetings committee what to do. For
> this to be turned into actionable criteria, it would need to describe
> (in some abstract way) what level of health risk would count against a
> city in the venue selection process.


Criteria, requirements, considerations...

By virtue of its explicitly seeking to relate some basic terms we've 
been using, the above text crystallized a confusion I've been having 
about the use of these terms.  The text clearly is based on a very solid 
sense of what the terms mean, how they differ and how they should be used.

The problem is that the meanings and differences and uses aren't 
entirely obvious to me.  Worse, I suspect each of us would offer 
different meanings and uses, and relative differences.

In other words, I think we all tend to use terms of art, like these, 
with an assumption of shared meaning that does not actually exist. 
However the role of these terms is too important for there to be 
divergent meaning.

To the extent that these terms are to be used in this document in 
anything approaching a clarifying or even normative fashion, we need 
text that defines them.  Unfortunately, since I'm confused about what 
they ought to mean here, I'm inclined to ask for others to offer text...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net