Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[Vinayak Hegde <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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.

+100

> '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.

+100

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

I am not so sure about being cavalier about rejecting new venues. Especially
since the US internet population is now dwarfed by other countries and
regions like
LATAM, China and India. The meeting venues should reflect that atleast fairly
(if not in representative fashion).

Thanks
Vinayak