Subject: [Mtgvenue] Issue #1: what means mandatory, important, etc.

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:14:35 +0200

Hi,

In dealing with this issue, based on the Chicago meeting, I propose the
following text to replace the current "mandatory" text.  This takes into
account the situation where once the contract is signed, the rules
change, as discussed in the meeting.

   Mandatory:
      If this requirement cannot be met, a particular location is
      unacceptable for selection, and no contract is to be entered into.
      Should the IAOC learn that a location no longer can meet a
      mandatory requirement after having entered into a contract, it
      will inform the community and address the matter on a case by case
      basis.

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 14:56:40 +0100

FWIW, if we do drastically reduce the number of "mandatory" things
this may be ok. But for the record I don't think this is a useful
term for this document. I'll wait and look at the next version to
see if the reduction in use of the problematic term gets rid of the
problem;-)

Cheers,
S.

On 05/04/17 14:14, Eliot Lear wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Mtgvenue mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mtgvenue
>