Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

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.


> 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?


d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net