Re: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food requirements

Dave CROCKER <> Tue, 26 August 2008 18:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C1B3A685D; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D853A69D5 for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.996
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.996 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.604, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jLhpvrQM0bgp for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7146]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4AC3A685D for <>; Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7QIgdfF006804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:39 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:38 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mary Barnes <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.92/8093/Tue Aug 26 09:01:30 2008 on
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [72attendees] New mailing list to discuss IETF Food requirements
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion list for the attendees of IETF 72 meeting." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Given the diversity of IETF participation, we can be assured that there are 
representatives for almost any point of view.  So, yes, I'm sure that some folks 
have no empathy or sympathy for the plight of others with culinary constraints. 
  But I think it is clear that that is not a dominant, or even significant, 
constituency within the IETF.

Rather, I believe the issue is merely one of practicality.  Some needs are 
easily accommodated.  Some are not.

Where more information is needed, the kind of discussion you are planning could 
be quite helpful.

But there are practical limits.  Limited resources and priorities to juggle.

That's why I ended by noting the considerable strategic benefit that accrues 
from placing the IETF somewhere with rich local resources:  It can offload the 
IETF machinery from some considerable burdens.

No matter how accommodating a hotel's staff might wish to be it, too, has 
resource constraints.


Mary Barnes wrote:
> I have no doubt that if everyone was impacted in such a way (i.e., no
> suitable meal for over 12 hours during the day) that folks would expect
> I do realize that for folks that don't have these limitations, the whole
> idea that this requires ANY discussion seems quite trite and whiny, but
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER [] 
 > So, striking a reasonable balance between the two is the interesting
> challenge.
> d/
> ps. Having meetings placed in resource-rich venues, within walking
> distance of those resources, is an important way to accommodate diverse
> requirements...


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
72attendees mailing list