Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/10/2016 10:19 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> What I think needs to happen is that the IAOC need to decide that
> information they process or create will be openly available as the
> default, while also identifying the specific kinds of information
> that they do need to keep confidential (e.g. hotel contract details).


That model can and does work for criteria subject to relatively 
objective and relatively consistent analysis.

On matters of political, social and environment concern, the community's 
concerns and reactions are significantly less predictable.

The IAOC (and the Meetings Committee that I participate in) means well 
and attempts to be diligent, but it simply is not certain (or IMO, 
likely) to adequately assess these kinds of community concerns well 
enough.  Last week demonstrated that.

'Transparency' is not a magical incantation.  The specifics of its 
nature and timing determine its efficacy.  In this case, merely 
publishing 'criteria' leaves an entire analysis process to be 
unpredictable; and having everyone inspect that process in real-time -- 
this is called a fishbowl) is not practical.  Having them inspect it 
post hoc is, at best, inefficient.

My own view is that the only way to make sure that a venue is acceptable 
to the community is to publish a list of candidate venues, as early as 
possible, and let the community debate any concerns it might have.

We already have a repertoire of acceptable venues.  IMO, we therefore 
can afford to be quite cavalier about rejecting new venues.


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net