-----Original Message-----
From: Mtgvenue <mtgvenue-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, April 21, 2018 at 9:25 PM
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>, "mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx" <mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Last Call: <draft-ietf-mtgvenue-meeting-policy-04.txt> (High level guidance for the meeting policy of the IETF) to Best Current Practice
On 4/21/18 1:39 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I don't see evidence sufficient to warrant a change to
>something else right now. In saying that I regard the
>1-1-1 scheme as being somewhat aspirational in practice,
>and that's ok.
Agreed, and I think the crux of the conversation underway is whether
these guidelines are aspirational or mandatory. The introduction of
meeting-policy makes it pretty clear that the document is an attempt to
write down the currently-in-use informal policy rather than change it,
and I believe that any citation of meeting-policy from venue-selection
needs to make the aspirational nature of the 1-1-1-* policy clear
(rather than, for example, using normative language, especially at a
MUST level).
/a
[cue] I agree with Adam on all points here.
Cheers,
Charles
