Re: [Diversity] Moving to meeting attendance NOT required (was: Re: Consideration for participation)

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 16 June 2016 14:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F33F12D664 for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.619
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5hbe1ONq979S for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:01:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 966B412D671 for <>; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5GE1Yt4008432; Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:01:34 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u5GE1WWW008393 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:01:33 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: "'Spencer Dawkins at IETF'" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <3d180fde-057a-aa7! b-0483-ae8429a16e1d@dcr> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:01:30 +0100
Message-ID: <08f301d1c7d7$9630c650$c29252f0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_08F4_01D1C7DF.F7F9E940"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGP8cKksCbKjGO1quUlmeQyPvsAAgHsM03QA0k3sncB1A0TvwIyksiMAgB+KO8B4w1LIgKH6+K0AdldXbgCJUmjewIHXctGAfJ1TqwCeCR0awGgZUkUAWNIzzwCDtpLTAHuNqcLAcznL7gBxZ+vZZ9KbzWA
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.996-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--17.996-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: pS5owHKhBO0Rj//xa6LvPmzBijri5+RVtq2ioQywfV1BTdeoy0R9D61l cDruwbtb5pV7A2rQWAh3aWU5jdY62EHgiCODMdHvw69AIwXJn0b5/eBqNPZwbCG8WMGwsRk0qbD mzbecxFs5GADTQYiPv9hXIcqvbqHo+GctOeJ1K2bsEjYqO+DyaBkqnRJng/51V9eB8vnmKe9xCE 8Zq25muKMd3iz4jcMVivnS4v8J4VgLGdE+fsESLvVFR4sC8dPyjLOy13Cgb49BL//DKiVczlQSW dmUbN6CyaTPXV1KeHk4JFE5JlohXLVQA3a8+5MyjWe5HOFKvuOSiza26cvwNAoDY6gYCVOTQnIN fdDRtC7P9iWT5wZW12m1UqnpPvLIDAixBlu3NnD9KXlxhBAZb4N12XKYbuJLVxt8iPZNr2zk1Lh A7Mwru3sKPI/dRnkxukYBDbAP/dDLHrDgIn7a5fYiLRVJ915DO69hrW/YgWFPHRT/jT6uvtroEG QiudNy50tk9VbmwM153HJ/9tpDR5vaiE3PQX6k1P5NwiFRQIFkkCTTgQDPZSf6nnnZywjVj+xgE Enuf532wUToZ9jiBjwu4/5s6Qxany+g/E7TmazPO7ODp2BrgjK1/qdbjc7QPd2nEgQbAJrwWEaN OnlY997Yzt4TtX6drC9NCmw8EAuLMWEQIO6h8PilM7nponT8kBfdTMRAXUalF7MF/8ayEnii5kS OR4tGsJkYS7cb8jqGAoXhhbsbIC95uXownWhRnQrZDK7DrTqZEoWHC6Rh/WTNuWQFsA2GYBBGfc v6WOGNIndKSIasU9eS5VWUkyw9nHoiWJ/w7MaeAiCmPx4NwGmRqNBHmBve1kTfEkyaZdxFGCd0S 0NCsvTKqRVHmIr9Xei0k8mjrmepru/MJAeRUfJZKXPGRDNOxYVzI3UCCaY=
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, 'Melinda Shore' <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Moving to meeting attendance NOT required (was: Re: Consideration for participation)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 14:01:47 -0000

I think Spencer caught it right (but I am also not the Mouthpiece of Melinda :-)
However, my reading is that this is not black and white. Nothing we do is "critical", "vital", or in any other way "necessary".  There are just shades of desirable and beneficial. There are trade-offs, and missing one meeting (for whatever reason - enforced, imposed, chosen,... ) is less likely to have an impact than never attending.
I think SM is actually in a really good position to talk to this precise point on attendance. He has been active in the IETF for a long time and has achieved stuff. Yet he is not often physically at IETF meetings. I'd like to hear his views, but my guess is: being there is nice, interesting, and helpful, but not being there does not prevent real work from being done.
From: diversity [] On Behalf Of Spencer Dawkins at IETF
Sent: 16 June 2016 14:46
To: Dave Crocker
Cc:; Melinda Shore
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Moving to meeting attendance NOT required (was: Re: Consideration for participation)
Hi, Dave,
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Dave Crocker <> wrote:
On 6/15/2016 10:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
I am disturbed
by the extent to which we're an organization in which someone
can participate meaningfully while being remote when we're
talking about Singapore and the extent we're an organization
in which someone needs to attend meetings to build relationships
and move work forward the rest of the time.  Seriously, this
needs to stop.

If we made that stop, what would things look like?  I think we do not have a detailed, shared description of the alternative environment that would exist.  Most folk probably have their own sense of what it might be, but we're missing s shared specification.

Similarly, how to we get there?  What steps do we need to take, to move to this better environment?
I'm not the Melinda Whisperer, but I thought Melinda meant inconsistency between discussions about whether being in Singapore in person is critical, versus discussions about whether being at any meeting in general in person is critical.
But she can correct me if I misthought.