Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Thu, 07 April 2016 02:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A119612D61F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 lWfe5wAkYVH8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4F3912D13A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.11.242] (104-60-96-29.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [104.60.96.29]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u372JB1F023471 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:19:11 -0700
Subject: Re: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
To: adrian@olddog.co.uk, ietf@ietf.org
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <5705C39E.30807@dcrocker.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:19:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$@olddog.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Wed, 06 Apr 2016 19:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/0vImjZeql153C0T5u1EgU53lLv0>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 02:19:14 -0000

On 4/6/2016 4:34 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
> How do we move on so:
...
> - this problem does not recur


What you probably do not mean is 'we do not go to Singapore again.

What you probably /do/ mean is that further venue selections avoid 
places that effectively serve to exclude participation by various 
constituencies.  Or at least, that is what I hope you mean, because it 
has broader utility.

So I'll repeat what I said at the virtual microphone:

    If the community wishes meeting venue selection to refrain from 
choosing specific places, the community needs to develop that list.

Anything less specific leaves too much to interpretation, which 
guarantees that similar errors will recur.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net