Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
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 52BB712DB86 for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 p9h6wLncyonr for <diversity@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D05FB12DAD3 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id o66so26249666ywc.3 for <diversity@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Oyn3sZmiPjF/TngT9RzHbuwhX8ZRUSN7M3KfoAL0mso=; b=BGtwbGE7Zege5cK0KtVbXbwRIgx3f6fgtPuA3oi7OBSQiR3Q2NxCrz3LJjOFlL1VZI 8uWTL1Cljg8m56fXzkn9kgp4LURIVWgMfRePbybgE/zHpLsmRp5uEZ3crxoYtfZ4khAu bsR8mcC2H1MW2AnGNG1Clk8kdzw3SM5JwMgKT2YMUVVw+Lu2sg0CUHod7x0vfKzIBVC5 wg8Th1R8VEYlUsiVq3T1xnHQhJ6uoBJD8mEOq7E3fy/mgTHKQ1nWRuYkGmvmlaaKqEjo 73FUte6x0JRhwN1Er+4tnoHSomAu1cQSu9WT5Jc5Q9u6iPmZLX/VLTR8ZV7PZQfOfJFO qPmw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Oyn3sZmiPjF/TngT9RzHbuwhX8ZRUSN7M3KfoAL0mso=; b=jSiY3zOwRdhDXy9rw9OOAIeJweQ076EdiLcnIXNAlTM48KtfUpbHCdr70fDQukh/F7 dRKzoAEjC/092WG1j/GYVcwccMs6zxXBThOQBYhwemcsVTNkueFsJnKAPbbruVSfzuYy PZiMdn1N9PVKPmdF5cuQ7C5lV/P630EIlHCVr16luP2nBHE92LI/P4LqI7XtY3PbjRMN nIGJM/fPfmq5gprn+kATWgSN7Ky95V4yDR1aA4LH7WOQfI+Qh34RHNDYw4Tcoo4VHS0J RoexqMCrzrmtVInmMby5pP65mYmhMT8+MT9E10CTehM+VG1TCgjY+LWGMChneQOmwp/K 6XLg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUQV2lTGQSFZRorfoSIGWUhBXCvMh+Xlh+i4u0luBv9YVPMfM09TshleySK3htnoELuvm/fYPDsg/fTfQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.50.151 with SMTP id y145mr1793963yby.98.1460471650090; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.37.207.211 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <570CE6A7.6050707@dcrocker.net>
References: <20160410063603.6283348.44889.10575@blackberry.com> <459690655.171220.1460293717474.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20160410074445.0de30c68@resistor.net> <570A8B0E.5060505@cs.tcd.ie> <CAKe6YvMgZCA8NkKAbhGzdc8XQj+S+ma90_jw788qTs0xLOZRyQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-eHpqbh+i+ZfaF6BtsrP6nzPTzOMzgwxnWMURC5SwPxJQ@mail.gmail.com> <570CE6A7.6050707@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:34:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-cT_1zhK-4Ohj3=c+G8J+fOBG2-0aEMpz2D9EQpWyFtJA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113572f8e885f305304a8de9
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/diversity/UX5QBysC5hpAbATSLUWRRfrRwfE>
Cc: "diversity@ietf.org" <diversity@ietf.org>, Vinayak Hegde <vinayakh@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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:34:12 -0000

Hi, Dave,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:

> On 4/11/2016 7:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>
>> Yeah, we had to complain, and complain loudly, but if you check out
>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/proceedings.html, you'll see a lot more IETF
>> meetings in Canada, especially during the worst times. There would
>> likely have been even more meetings in Canada, except for hosts who
>> wanted IETF meetings in specific places in the US (which is fair,
>> because those specific places were easier for them to support).
>>
>
> Is it fair?
>
> If we know of a pattern of problems with getting participants to be able
> to attend, shouldn't that be more important than host convenience (as long
> as we have the choice of an alternate venue)?  The goal of a meeting is to
> get work done.  Choosing a venue that makes it difficult for participants
> to attends works against that basic goal.


I'd say that if our deal with hosts is that they are giving us hundreds of
thousands of dollars to host a meeting, and they can do that without
spending even more money on stuff that's hard in one location, and easier
in another, we can't be surprised that they want to do it in the easy
location.

If that doesn't work for us, we should tell them, and go from there. But
that's up to us.

Speaking only as a meeting attendee, on this one, of course.


>
> The Secretariat started opening registration earlier, so people could
>> register and request visa letters earlier. I don't know if it ever
>> happened, but there was talk about letting people register for more than
>> one meeting, so they could request a visa letter for IETF N+1 before
>> IETF N had even happened.
>>
>> When three Nomcom members were delayed getting visas for Honolulu, my
>> understanding is that IETF/ISOC folk were making personal calls to the
>> US State Department to see what could be done to expedite that.
>>
>
> Every country carries some kinds of problems, given the diversity of IETF
> attendance.  But some countries are notably more problematic.
>
> Is it reasonable to hold our meetings in places that require this sort of
> special action?  If so, why?


I suspect that there are other special actions taken when we meet in other
places, that haven't gone through episodes of difficulty for Chinese
attendees - but honestly, that's what I know most about, from spending ten
years at Huawei, especially early on (say, 2005 to 2008), so I don't know
what else has been required for other people in other places.

I can't comment on "reasonable".

Spencer