IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
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 B8EB81276AF for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 pxropQTEGaQB for <mtgvenue@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x233.google.com (mail-wr0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB5B51293E1 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 09:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x233.google.com with SMTP id t20so70400871wra.1 for <mtgvenue@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ssAw64Uf5l1/pTO7Kjqe7iPvvhv/SzVzORzoNvUR19g=; b=u76ZTdZOvdadyk3nWOEav7pUfIt7LGN+XEtFpCyDA5YcNSgXMI62GXbKQfTbaGSrUa sNosrxnkXVBCpc7hoTpxJFnHNsd5ZL6glAirh3qgypwJJk18KWaXVJZM6WiSDhIVmM+Y eY66GZ779Qj9ganX53HL+FMgV2+/aH2JwSvh6gzq9y8QFTolz+EZgeHvEsZy3P2OAl+R DN8LFQ+e90P7SuyTJajZyr6c5ke/4Wru+SwDFj7pBDH53XA+GMmZeobnUjrLQOdn0sdC RJJYMXZz5xk78Sd52FL6Z6svL73jZpw3jcj7oTkpTrRxRE5V2R6O/5LOqPEBvMqO+c+Z IqeA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ssAw64Uf5l1/pTO7Kjqe7iPvvhv/SzVzORzoNvUR19g=; b=V7mtV4H2eFt6kA/GiBP6Z2pFNyLrCQGvpjO87yNvi1EvN3BAdxHUNxs26uLNNiUmhy S0BGGiWKjTidqid8rbuCB/ZsFA5KgQYzDQhi9TchEY6eG6dKnLSf0E2EiDSv17Jv2dy/ Yqe14dI/wpJ2CkLvJU7r+RmS85yJyEeLo4WWUoj78SMNNpnRO+WZTk0yOff5RzNMlaES qC+mCRMGfT9eaFXYxBjkAKqfRd/d/Cn3oDYOO+RuK4oGbDSFKvBHX26rnAwvBCUYS7vL SV//bvdm/LQ5BgSFVnhp6nMgz+UiGwFNPrBGb60Bq776EGK7XU9KRB3v1FZ6iQ5pebP8 kXYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2IdTavpHkV0q5t29kN1JhTP92no83aKdzd2Y9EGkYelvensgyV25AlfwLqV8Nb6w==
X-Received: by 10.223.164.210 with SMTP id h18mr29419591wrb.128.1491495565169; Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 221.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa (221.66.20.149.in-addr.arpa. [149.20.66.221]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k13sm2974593wmi.28.2017.04.06.09.19.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <456B095C-17A0-4982-90FE-55283676B6D4@cooperw.in>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 09:19:21 -0700
Cc: "mtgvenue@ietf.org" <mtgvenue@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F5E9CB7-B765-4AC9-8D96-BF5640F1862C@gmail.com>
References: <37de22dc-04a4-f868-698e-cf03cd791957@cisco.com> <7add7c4a-032f-6b78-5b5f-861835a64f9a@dcrocker.net> <006325a5-83e7-9295-71a1-67c0125aa7cb@cisco.com> <c57adf52-3db7-5cfc-d301-3135010e17c6@cs.tcd.ie> <CA+9kkMA7iQrMg2y6g5=i96HL3-_8X04BsQjZEhzWe++uZzJvmQ@mail.gmail.com> <86de8a9c-3de3-dc35-b4e3-42553b91a53a@dcrocker.net> <7c0589e7-e68e-481a-e625-aa744e5fbf64@cisco.com> <456B095C-17A0-4982-90FE-55283676B6D4@cooperw.in>
To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mtgvenue/zspTrdJ1nl1kwH5bqNcCSINO5Eo>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] issue #3: Too many mandatory
X-BeenThere: mtgvenue@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 16:19:29 -0000

On Apr 6, 2017, at 8:29 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> wrote:
> I think it will be easier to settle on criteria for initial venue selection before adding these additional factors into the discussion.

Which, of course, brings us back to the comment I first made at the mike in Chicago. We need to have an idea of what timeframe this draft targets. Does it target breaking a contract, making a contract, or investigating options with a view to advising the IAOC on a possible contract? I agree, let's not focus on failure, which would result in breaking a contract, especially given that to my knowledge the IETF has never needed to do so. Let's focus on investigation of venues (the context of the first draft I wrote), and perhaps guide the IAOC in the trade-offs relevant to selecting one.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email