At 7:27 PM -0500 1/12/16, John C Klensin wrote:
The IESG decided that we should go to South America (whether they or IAOC came up with the idea seems to be in dispute). The community was asked if that would be ok (without mentioning the implications for the hotel situation), came up with answers the IESG interpreted as "yes', and then the Meetings Committee moved ahead to make the best arrangements possible given that the decision to go to Buenos Aires had already been made. Now, you probably see some problems with that sequence of events (and I do too), but it seems to me that, if the Meetings Committee is given what it reasonably construes as instructions from the IAOC and/or IESG to hold a meeting in a particular place at a particular time, then what we ended up with is exactly what one should expect unless there are definite rules that say "either these conditions MUST be met or you need to come back to the community for explicit approval with the rule for which an exception is proposed explicitly identified". Noting comments from Ole, Bob Hinden, and others, there also better be _very_ few such rules because the various systems are easily overconstrained.
Seems like a good way forward. -- Randall Gellens Opinions are personal; facts are suspect; I speak for myself only -------------- Randomly selected tag: --------------- Change from 1980 to 2013 in California's spending on public universities: -13% On prisons: +436% --Harper's Index May 2013 (figures as of March 2013)