Re: Concerns about Singapore

Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> Mon, 11 April 2016 10:45 UTC

Return-Path: <rsk@gsp.org>
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 3BE2812D1AD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:45:28 -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 A8zHUudxwV8o for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from taos.firemountain.net (taos.firemountain.net [207.114.3.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FAB612D1E1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 03:45:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gsp.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by taos.firemountain.net (8.15.1/8.14.9) with SMTP id u3BAjKaT008598 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:45:19 -0400
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
Message-ID: <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org>
References: <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com> <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3XmnEfnyZVWGPdMguN6sx9t_l1o>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:45:28 -0000

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +0000, Andrew Allen wrote:
> We could be left with the only possible venue being a cruise ship
> sailing in international waters - [snip]

There is another alternative -- one I've raised repeatedly.

Don't have physical meetings.  Then this entire problem space simply
vanishes, along with the need for a discusion thread that's now over a
hundred messages.  (And it's not the first one.)  YES, it's replaced by a
different problem space, which roughly works out to "how can everything
be done virtually?"  but given that this is the *Internet* engineering
task force I have no doubt that the collective expertise is more than
capable of dealing with that.  Particularly if all the discussion, effort,
and expense going into the logistics of physical meetings is redirected
into virtual ones instead.

I really can't take any of the platitudes about "inclusion" seriously
until that happens -- because as long as the IETF persists with physical
meetings, most people *will* be excluded due to cost, distance, time,
legal climate, personal safety, etc.  The IETF is, even if accidentally,
selecting for the elite few who are fortunate enough to be attend.

---rsk