Subject: [Mtgvenue] Comments on -04

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:05:48 -0500

Dear colleagues,

I have reviewed -04.  I appreciate the work that has gone into this.
I think this is better, though some of my basic concerns remain.  This
note is unreasonably long.  Sorry.  Didn't have time to write a short
one &c.

As background and for disclosure to those who may not have followed
this before, I am not now and have never been a member of the meetings
committee (MC), but until March I'll be a member of the IAOC and
therefore one of the stuckees to defend IAOC decisions with respect to
meetings -- mostly, to defend decisions I didn't make and responsible
to make decisions that others will be stuck defending.  Therefore, I
look at this draft through the lens of, "How would I use this guidance
in voting for or against a recommendation from the MC?"

I remain concerned about a couple large issues.  I am alert to the
complaint that I do not offer these in the OLD: <text> NEW:
<othertext> form.  That's because I still don't feel the text is at
the point where that sort of small adjustment is possible.  (Had I
understood how much resistance there'd be to large changes, I never
would have supported adoption of this draft in the first place.)  I
nevertheless attempt to offer text changes where I can below.  I list
some other smaller issues later, but I think they're subordinate to
the three biggies.

Large issue 1: many categories
====================

The first issue is the splitting of the criteria into so many
categories.  I don't understand the utility.  In terms of actually
making decisions, there are basically three divisions.  Criteria that
are mandatory cannot be traded no matter what, and therefore they
ought to be listed together.  Criteria that need to be traded off
need, well, to be traded off; so they ought to be listed together too.
All other criteria literally don't matter except as tie-breakers, so
the only reason to list them is to emphasise that certain things are
nicer to have than other ones.  The decision tree is a simple tree,
not a multidimensional one, so the additional dimension obscures
matters while adding nothing at all to decision-making.

A solution to this might be either to add another section that lists
the entire decision-rules in one place, or else to recast the category
listing as a single decision-rule table and then provide a
category-based breakout as an appendix or another section.

For instance, here are the criteria listed in decision-rule form (I
_think_ I got it all):

Mandatory: No Venue failure from community consultation, Venue
acceptable travel, Venue host and sponsors, Venue low barriers to
entry, Venue travel issue assessments, Facility size and layout,
Facility costs, Venue cash positive, Facility easy for wheelchairs,
Facility-techno support ok, Facility-techno network ok, Hotels-techno
network ok, Hotels proximity ok, Hotels number ok, Hotels contracts &
costs ok, Venue cheap hotels poss, Hotels wheelchairs ok, Venue
environs meal choices ok, Venue food restrictions ok.

Important: Venue disabilities ok, Hotels disabilities ok, HQ Hotel
lounge, Venue environs groceries.

Desired: Venue Multi-event contract, Facility one roof, Hotels
Internet ok.

Large issue 2: Too much mandatory & in the passive voice
=====================================

The above list has an enormous number of "Mandatory" and not very many
things that can be traded off, let alone things that are just nice to
have.  (It's also interesting that one of the "nice to haves" has been
the reason given to me not even to look at a number of places in the
explanations, so I'm not convinced that reflects actual practice.
That's a separate problem.) But if you look carefully at the Mandatory
cases, I think they're not all really Mandatory.  For instance (I'm
picking just one at random, so that this is the example isn't
significant):

   Travel to the Venue is acceptable based on cost,
   time, and burden for participants traveling from
   multiple regions. It is anticipated that the burden
   borne will be generally shared over the course of 
   multiple years. 

The problem is, if I am evaluating that, I don't know what "is
acceptable" means.  It's either empty (because, by definition, if
people show up the cost was acceptable) or else it's waving away the
contentiousness around "acceptable".  More importantly, since this
explicitly says that it's to be shared over the course of years, it's
actually an Important, and not Mandatory, item.

This is part of the reason I noted the other day that I just couldn't
tell whether the distinction Alissa and I had previously tried to make
is captured in the draft.  I believe that the various inconveniences
of informal travel restrictions that make visa-granting a crapshoot
are to be traded off, because we need to be prepared for the
possibility that people of one country or another are going to get
jerked around in any Venue.  At the same time, I believe that formal
bans against some class of people where that ban is not empirically
founded ought to be complete disqualifiers.  Legal restrictions on
(say) Upper Slobbovians or L-chromosome carriers are not ok and we
should eschew such sites.  Informal restrictions that turn out this
year to be capriciously applied against Lower Sobbovians and
M-chromosome carriers are not ok and are to be deplored, but are
predictable consequences of going from country to country.

I therefore think that a very serious look at what is Mandatory vs
Somethingelse is needed, with a view to reducing the Mandatory list.
Anything that has tradeoffs in it is automatically not Mandatory.
Anything else that seems to have room for wiggle is similarly not
really "Mandatory" except in the sense that there is some floor below
which the IAOC's judgement should say, "This is too onerous."

At bottom, that latter issue may be my real concern, because the
"Mandatory" list seems to offer a false objectivity.  The items are
all Mandatory, but since many of them involve descriptions that invoke
an enormous amount of judgement they're not really mandatory in the
English sense of the word at all.  They're important, and they're also
Important in the sense this draft describes.  They can be balanced
against one another, in a way that (for instance) a Venue actually having
enough meeting rooms and having them close enough to each other to
permit a meeting just cannot.  We _can't_ have a meeting without this
one:

    The Facility is adequate in size and layout to
    accommodate the meeting and foster participant
    interaction.

We maybe _could_ have a meeting without this one, but it might be
smaller:

    The cost of guest rooms, meeting space, meeting
    food and beverage is affordable, within the norms
    of business travel.
    
And we totally could have a meeting without this one, because we've in
fact done it (unless "allow" here is construed to mean "logically
possible):

    The economics of the Venue allow the meeting to be
    net cash positive.

Note that I'm particularly worried about all these Mandatories because
of §5.4 a.

Large issue 3: Process innovation
======================

I don't know whether I've just not made this clear, or whether the
editors really disagree with me, but §4.1 appears to me to suggest
that we have a standard IETF consensus call about many issues related
to venues, and combined with the "is acceptable" language in §3 looks
to me like an enormous potential burden with possibly appealable
consequences.  I think this is a terrible idea.

It's this ¶ in particular that makes me worried:

   IETF consensus, with respect to this meeting Venue selection process
   is judged via standard IETF process and not by any other means, e.g.,
   surveys.  Surveys are used to gather information related to meeting
   venues, but not to measure consensus or to be reported as
   consensus.

If the below is what's meant instead, I can live with it (though I
think it could in that case be removed as it is already determined
elsewhere):

   IETF consensus, with respect to the meeting venue selection process
   herein outlined, is judged according to standard IETF process and
   not by any other means, e.g., surveys.  Surveys are used to gather
   information related to Venues, but not to measure consensus
   or to be reported as consensus.  By the same token, Venue decisions
   are not themselves subject to IETF consensus, and are instead
   decisions taken by the IAOC.

Smaller issues
==========

I'm not sure what to make of the definition in §3 where hotel rooms
might or might not be part of Facility.  This seems strange, though I
guess it's probably because of the IETF network?  If so, say that.
(But given that IETF Hotels and HQ Hotel are defined, this seems
wrong.)

More generally, there are some tricky bits of the definitions because
they seem gappy.  We have a requirement of the Venue under the
Facility division, a notion of "Venue environs" that is a little
tricky given the meaning of Venue (maybe that's Facility environs?
Something else?), and a "Venue contract" which is probably a Facility
or Hotel or something contract.  I don't have a lot more to say here
because I still want to be sure we're in agreement about the large
before I tackle the middlin'.  But the terminology is hard to follow,
which might be partly because of the two-dimensional categories.  I
_think_ another problem might be that we need to define separately
Location, maybe City?, and maybe something else -- Greater
Neighbourhood is all I can come up with -- to make this work
reasonably.  (This becomes obvious in 5.1 where the tension between
Venue and city is most stark.)

I think that §§4.4 and 4.7 could be a whole lot clearer that the
responsibility for Venue selection rests ultimately with the IAOC and
that it's those people about whom IETF participants should complain to
the nomcom, if and when needed.

In §5.1b, what if the target list is not known?  Is there something to
do in that case?

In §5.2, should we provide a period for a concurrent objection to the
posted list?  That is, it'd be nice if there were a way for people to
say, "I know you're already investigating this place.  I still have
concerns, so please look into…"  I am of two minds about this, so
that's why this is a question and not a claim that we should.

There seems an enormous gulf between 5.4 and 5.5.  What happens if
(just for instance) the country in which the Venue is found suddenly
changes its immigration policy in the interim.  Are there instructions
for this?

I hope these remarks are useful to the editors.  In my opinion, this
document needs at least one more round before it is ready for last
call.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 14:31:13 +1300

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
...
> 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

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

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 01:36:39 +0000

> and change very little or nothing.

FWIW, I'd be ok with that approach - it may be better
to have all the criteria at the level of "MUST be
considered" and leave it at that. That said, I'm not
sure if this list already debated that.r

S.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 23:07:58 -0500

> Personally I think it's more readable arranged the way it is,

I don't actually care about readability.  I care about utility in
decision-making (as I noted in the preamble to my note), and this
organization is impenetrable for that

> because it means that we aren't wasting time on minor issues.

This is a completely absurd meaning of "mandatory" (and not the one in
the document).  It's not that it's mandatory to make the call, but
rather that if the criterion cannot be satisfied then the meeting is
not to be held there.  It's perfectly clear in the text:

   Mandatory:
      If this requirement cannot be met, a location under consideration
      is unacceptable.  We walk away.

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

Well, if that's what we mean by this, then I think the entire point of
the associated text is lost and it should all be removed.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:23:33 -0800

> organization is impenetrable for that

The current organization aggregates related items.  Related by topic, 
which is what the category labels indicate.  This permits reviewing them 
together, to see how they cover their category.

Organizing things by level of requirement is remarkably unhelpful. 
Imagine, please if we wrote protocols specifications, with all of the 
MUSTs together, then all of the SHOULDs, then all of the MAYs, rather 
than putting things together that are related to the same semantic 
aspect of the protocol.

So no, not impenetrable.  Practical.

{Small procedural nit:  You've raised this issue at least twice before 
(July and November) and got quite a lot of discussion, but little-to-no 
supporting traction.  On the average, the IETF frowns on persistently 
re-raising issues that have been previously considered, absent new 
information about them.)

>       is unacceptable.  We walk away.

Requiring due diligence about specific issues is quite common when 
writing requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is... absurd. 
  As for possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the document: 
  In some cases getting the necessary information is problematic.  So we 
don't go there.  Again, not absurd.

d/

-- 
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:33:48 +1300

>       is unacceptable.  We walk away.

Yes, but since they are all judgment calls this is actually meaningless.
If the IAOC has to consider both Timbuktu and Ulaanbaatar, they can
decide that the visa rules for Timbuktu are acceptable, and those for
Ulaanbaatar are unacceptable. Or the opposite. In effect, what I said
is the case: it's making the judgment call that's the MUST. After that,
the decisions follow automatically.

   Brian

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 17:05:52 +0200

> Large issue 3: Process innovation

This absolutely needs to be there.

As for the large issue 2 (too much mandatory & in the passive voice)
I tend to agree with Andrew, but with a twist.

It would be beneficial to make the list of mandatory requirements
shorter, and at the very least, explicitly say what Brian suggested:

  it's made by the IAOC

Or rather, that the IAOC MUST establish that the chosen
location is above the minimum threshold for that particular
requirement. Which I think is what is meant.

I’ll just observe that even the criteria from draft-sullivan
is to an extent soft. Even things like sufficient meeting
space can be, because we occasionally have
discussions with the secretariat on whether
we’d fit in or if there’d be compromises on
things like bnb space or small side group meeting
rooms.

Jari

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:21:39 -0500

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 08:23:33PM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:

> The current organization aggregates related items.  Related by topic, which
> is what the category labels indicate.  This permits reviewing them together,
> to see how they cover their category.

The point I'm trying to make is that the categories do no work,
because if the requirement levels mean what they say they do then it
makes no difference whether the different requirement levels apply to
different categories, since that's not how these criteria are to be
compared.  So, either there is a dimension of comparison that is
supposed to be used but that is not actually captured in the document,
or else there is a dimension included that obscures the comparability
of two different criteria under two different categories.  (For
instance, you don't get to start asking about whether a Venue can be
put under multi event contracts until you've answered whether a
Facility has enough room.  Or, maybe you do, because maybe you're
supposed to go through the criteria by category, in which case that
idea is nowhere plain in this document.)

> {Small procedural nit:  You've raised this issue at least twice before (July
> and November) and got quite a lot of discussion, but little-to-no supporting
> traction.  On the average, the IETF frowns on persistently re-raising issues
> that have been previously considered, absent new information about them.)

I think our interpretations of the outcome of previous discussions
(not to mention the word "considered") may differ.  Also, in my
experience, the IETF frowns on WG document editors waving away any
persistent objections with condescending responses both on and off
list.  Perhaps this WG is outside the mean.  But in the interests of
trying to get this over with, I won't mention it again.  For future
iterations of this document, WG participants can take it as read that
I still won't find this organization of the material in any way
helpful in thinking about how I'd decide to vote on something as an
IAOC member.

> Requiring due diligence about specific issues is quite common when writing
> requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is... absurd.

A "mandatory requirement" is not something that is mandatory to think
about.  It is mandatory to _meet_ that requirement.  Otherwise, there
is literally no distinction in this draft among things that are
Mandatory, Important, and Desired.  That is why such a reading is absurd.

> As for
> possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the document:  In some
> cases getting the necessary information is problematic.  So we don't go
> there.  Again, not absurd.

I don't even know what "Mandatory" is supposed to mean under this
reading.  For instance, the draft has a Mandatory requirement:

On one occasion as a member of the IAOC, I was presented with a
recommendation from the MC for a location where guest room charges
were way out of line with what we were used to, and I was assured that
they'd come down once we agreed and that all other manner of cost
changes would be likely.  Getting the information before actually
opening negotiations was said to be completely problematic.  So, the
recommendation was that the IAOC approve the site and start contract
negotiations.  This seems to be in line with the sort of case you
envision.  But my conclusion was that we didn't have the information
we needed and what I took to be a mandatory consideration wasn't met,
so I was opposed to that site.

It sounds like what you're saying is that it would be ok to go ahead
under those circumstances because we thought about it and getting the
information was problematic.  Again, the document says Mandatory
means, "If this requirement cannot be met, a location under
consideration is unacceptable.  We walk away."  Perhaps you could say
how that definition could possibly be met in the case where you don't
have enough information to know whether the requirement can in fact be
met.

If I understood Brian, he thinks that it'd be ok for the IAOC under
those circumstances to say, "Well, yeah, the cost is outside the norms
we have, but we thought about it so the criterion is satisfied."  I
don't see how that comports with "requirement can[not] be met", but
perhaps Brian can say more.

In my reading, the requirement is a hard one and the IAOC must be able
to say, "Yes, we have positive information that the conditions match
this requirement at the time we selected the Venue."  If IAOC members
cannot satisfy themselves of that, then "we walk away."  This is part
of why I am very far from convinced that all of the Mandatory list
items ought to be on that list.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:46:16 -0800

On 1/31/2017 7:21 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> (not to mention the word "considered") may differ.

Oh.  Well that would mean that we've failed to incorporate the changes 
that you got wg support for.  I apologize.

Which of the previous times your concerns were raised developed that 
support?  Please point me to the mailing list content that produced that 
agreement, and in particular please indicate what changes were agreed to.

 >  Also, in my
> list.

Interesting.  I raise a very specific process concern -- including 
reference to the prior dates -- and you return with a generic (and 
undocumented) ad hominem.  Nice.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:12:12 -0500

Hi Dave,

> agreement, and in particular please indicate what changes were agreed to.

As I think my note already said, you win.  I'll stop discussing it

> Interesting.  I raise a very specific process concern -- including reference
> to the prior dates -- and you return with a generic (and undocumented) ad
> hominem.  Nice.

My apologies, you're right, it is wrong to point to things off-list.
I hereby withdraw that remark.

But in any case, you have not responded to my concerns about the
various definitional issues, which I think are rather more important
since this document is supposed to guide the IAOC.  I can't understand
how it will do that if the definitions in the document are not
actually what people are supposed to use.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:12:16 -0900

It's clear that one of the problems underlying our inability
to come to agreement on some of the requirements is that
there's not agreement about what "mandatory" means in the
context of this document.  It seems that some people see
"mandatory" (and other requirements language) as applying
to the venue under consideration, and others see "mandatory"
as applying to the IAOC meeting committee's evaluation
process.  To be honest, in the current draft I read it as
applying to the venue.

I don't see any way to come to consensus on the requirements
without greater clarity about that, and it also seems clear
that the document needs to include some text stating explicitly
what entity the requirements language applies to (the venue or
the committee).  But first, we need agreement on what's
intended.

Melinda

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:54:46 -0800

On 1/31/2017 8:12 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>> Which of the previous times your concerns were raised developed
>> that support?  Please point me to the mailing list content that
>> produced that agreement, and in particular please indicate what
>> changes were agreed to.
>

Andrew, this has nothing to do with me, no matter how much you try to
claim otherwise.

You have attempted to re-litigate this issue at least 3 times in the
working group.  You are insistent on the correctness of your views, and
gosh that's so unusual for someone participating in the IETF.  Goodness
knows I've never felt that level of certitude about any of the views
I've promoted.  But the only question that ever matters is whether
community/wg support developed enough to direct changes.

Hence my question.

>  I hereby withdraw that remark.

Except that you aren't withdrawing it and you aren't really even
apologizing.  You are re-asserting the correctness of this false claim,
while asserting a false excuse for declining to substantiate it.

These is a long list of messages that I posted to you and/or Alissa on
the list, during the previous rounds of discussion about your concerns,
last Summer and last Fall, attempting to get followup on your concerns,
by raising counter-concerns and/or seeking details.

And these don't count the private messages I sent you and Alissa,
attempting to get you to engage with details and pragmatics.

>  since this document is supposed to guide the IAOC.  I can't
> understand how it will do that if the definitions in the document
> are not actually what people are supposed to use.

How very selective of you to mention this.

And wrong:

On 1/30/2017 8:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> This is a completely absurd meaning of "mandatory" (and not the
>> one in the document).  It's not that it's mandatory to make the
>> call, but rather that if the criterion cannot be satisfied then
>> the meeting is not to be held there.  It's perfectly clear in the
>> text:
>>
>> Mandatory: If this requirement cannot be met, a location under
>> consideration is unacceptable.  We walk away.
>
> writing requirements and procedures.  So calling it absurd is...
> absurd. As for possibly not matching the meaning of Mandatory in the
> document: In some cases getting the necessary information is
> problematic.  So we don't go there.  Again, not absurd.

It's one thing to respond to this with some thoughtful basis for
disagreement.  Instead your above comments implies that you didn't even
see it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:26:29 -0500

Hi Dave,

> community/wg support developed enough to direct changes.

And I've said I give up.  I still think the approach in the I-D is
wrong, and I don't think you've ever actually answered my concerns
about it, which are all based in trying to understand how the
additional dimension helps anyone make a decision.  But I give up, and
I said I won't mention it again.  I'm not sure what else you would
like from me.

> Except that you aren't withdrawing it

I just did, right there where you quoted me.

> by raising counter-concerns and/or seeking details.

My interpretation of your messages was that you were simply rejecting
the overall premise from which we were starting, and insisting that
somehow we offer patches to the I-D.  I think we have in fact offered
text, and I offered text in the message that I sent upthread.  I made
some concrete suggestions. The WG or its editors may take them or
leave them.

> disagreement.  Instead your above comments implies that you didn't even

Except that I actually _quoted_ that passage and responded to it in
another message, where I pointed out that I couldn't even understand
what mandatory could possibly mean in the way you are using it.  As I
think you might be aware, since that message is another one to which
you have replied.

Anyway, I am past the point at which I think I am able to make any
contribution to this text given the apparent impasse I have every
single time I attempt to communicate with you about it.  I am not
going to be on the IAOC starting in March, so I won't actually have to
struggle with the implementation of this draft; and apparently I am
the only one who has my worries about that implementation.  So my
worries won't matter, and future IAOCs will presumably have something
to work with.  I've offered such remarks as I can make.  I regret that
they have not been useful to you.  

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:48:18 +1300

On 01/02/2017 04:21, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
...
> perhaps Brian can say more.

That's exactly the problem. The criterion itself is worded so that the
the IAOC has to make a judgment (in the case you cited, "is $X a night
affordable?"). So they think about it and decide that $500 is affordable,
because if they decided it was too much, the venue would be excluded.

Then the IETF's only recourse is the NomCom.

> items ought to be on that list.

Now there, I think, we agree. It isn't the criterion that's wrong. It's
that by giving it the label "mandatory" we distort the decision process,
perversely giving the IAOC an incentive to decide that $500 is affordable,
or we can't go to Timbuktu.

Obviously I chose an absurd price level to illustrate the point, but the
combination of "mandatory" and a judgment call will be tricky in any case.
We probably can't duck it in every case, but mandatory requirements that
depend on judgment calls need to be kept to a strict minimum.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:50:47 +1300

> process.  To be honest, in the current draft I read it as

My point is a bit more subtle, and I tried to explain in the
reply I just sent to Andrew. It's *intended* to apply to the
venue, but it unintentionally applies to the IAOC process of
making judgment calls.

   Brian

> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 13:30:08 -0900

> venue, but it unintentionally applies to the IAOC process of

It's a good point, although I'm not sure it's necessary
to build firewalls against the IAOC doing really stupid
things (I've been wrong about that sort of things before).
The main thing is that I think we're blocked on
this until some alternative text is proposed.  Presumably
we can continue the discussion without personalizing it.

Melinda

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:49:20 +1300

> we can continue the discussion without personalizing it.

We certainly can. I'm not worried about the IAOC being stupid
but about confirmation bias. If I have a bit of a leaning towards
Timbuktu, I am likely to judge a $500 hotel room there as just
about affordable, without even knowing that my thinking is
biased. Whereas if it was the London Metropole, which I hated,
I'd probably judge $500 as excessive.

   Brian

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:45 -0800

> process.  To be honest, in the current draft I read it as

I wrote the original text. It was intended, at the time, to mean that the consideration in question had to be true of the venue at the time that the meetings committee was asking the question. If it was necessary that the venue be in the same country as an airport, for example, and a venue being proposed wasn't, the meetings committee could drop the venue from consideration. This was based on the original purpose of the document, which was to guide the meetings committee in its evaluation of possible venues.

Things that could be traded off against each other, by that rubric, could not be "mandatory". Anything that required judgement could be unsatisfied if other circumstances justified the trade-off.

My sense at the moment is that the intended use of the document has migrated quite a bit. We seem to be discussing IAOC deliberations (which take the meetings committee recommendation as an input), and in at least one provision have asked that it be reviewed very close to the actual meeting date. This gives me concern, as I find myself wondering whether venues exist that actually meet all of the "mandatory" criteria. I know that in our analysis, nearly a year ago, we backed away from some criteria that would have been nice to consider "mandatory", because they seemed difficult to satisfy in all of the regions in which we try to have meetings.

As a thought experiment, it might be interesting for people involved in this discussion look around their regions and identify the potential venues that would be acceptable. If we have such in each region, so be it, but if we don't, on what points do venues fail?

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:10:48 -0800

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:11:38 -0800