Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[SM <[e-mail]>]

Hi Spencer, Vinayak,
At 19:28 11-04-2016, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>This may sound like I'm arguing with you, but I'm agreeing on your meta-issue.

[snip]

>Now, if you read what I've said so far, you'll notice that even 
>working for a large multinational that routinely sends dozens of 
>participants who require visas to IETF meetings, and spending five 
>years on the IAB and IESG, I don't know very much about the state of 
>play here. I've got a lot of "I heard"s, and a lot of "I don't know X, but"s.
>
>So, if your meta-issue is that more transparency would be awesome, 
>I'd agree wholeheartedly! Because one of the side effects of 
>translucence, or even opacity, is that people work their asses off, 
>and most of us never hear about it, even if we would benefit by 
>knowing about what they had done.

Would I believe a "I heard" or "I don't know X but"?  I might do so 
the first time.  As I experience the problem again and again I might 
wonder whether the "good people" understand the problem I am 
facing.  When I see IETF attendees complaining about a room 
temperature problem I wonder whether that is what the IETF Community 
considers as the priority.

I read the minutes of proceedings of the last plenary.  There was the 
following comment: "An important venue selection principle is that it 
is inclusive".  I don't see that in the IAOC slides (2013) about 
venue selection.  Do I need to attend an IETF meeting to know about 
that principle?  Is that transparency?

Regards,
-sm