Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 11 April 2016 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: diversity@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B8A12E711 for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:49:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3nfLduOYUNRj for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:49:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB99712E710 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38467BDF9; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:49:02 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8DDXWd283bOX; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:49:00 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.23.241]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F420DBDCC; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:48:59 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1460357340; bh=07rqaB5shruINnZod4BcdwLO3kB5+mA2JdNsTXxZmDs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=MwE+uxGUsohnRzKjxqzktOm8UMBw7tAUCJrGnktAElpB02VCuY72BjqXblVWnBA5L 3NrhD1otboVC/PiOs2Az8A8AGDk4q+ubTENJvC9wognweto0Qg6EP9Dykx6OugXhvJ KIpTz/dC9HP+eJuNgALPCr/gRKHcryG2hvRjsgKk=
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@gmail.com>, SM <sm@resistor.net>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <CAKe6YvNWOVQQXMa+nGYhWkHGRgB7DM3yYcTCELWZ4AbipZAdwA@mail.gmail.com> <704605888.359174.1460334642318.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <570B48DB.4040806@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:48:59 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <704605888.359174.1460334642318.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms040403040303080502070601"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/25Z-hzsfp7aHxThyOF7IKmuTPIE>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore
X-BeenThere: diversity@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <diversity.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/diversity/>
List-Post: <mailto:diversity@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity>, <mailto:diversity-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:49:05 -0000


On 11/04/16 01:30, nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com wrote:
> Now, again IMHO, we can do this the hard way (try to really
> understand the problem, really listen to each viewpoint & try to
> understand each other's reality) or we can do it the harder way
> (ignore the fundamental problem, focus on details, and be
> non-transparent).
> 
> Naturally, once the "harder" way does not work, we will be back to
> the first.

Nicely put and I agree with you.

As Dave points out, the IAOC do need to sort out IETF-100 in the
meantime, so for now perhaps the immediate best they can do is to
recognise they are on the hard and not harder path.

S.