Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Sat, 28 May 2016 05:54 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
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 A2F9E12D0FD for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:54:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 w2zaUoU4994d for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ADDF712D1E5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id o16so124019097ywd.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=O26g8M6ostZv1aeKzHW/pFT7dt/N2wFbgw2MVaO5q7M=; b=NU3ybJmQZVloo4D5XkwHyqvf9KU3cJpAx7dd9CCe7kfe6VxTQaUvGMW9ZWGI1SLjUP facuLI6AEuW+ZuNvY3h3u6U2AgipimLtkqfGTL6UkuTzkn4IpoflABV1iazSYsZRGxv1 0PvdzEob5xzeVgxhxA4gVuSBKpz6OpPUpl2Ow13hzGJKLNKcVRHo3y6oZdgvtpyle1aP 70Ttjo/oStCSX4CKDY3JycVvFNJ+Ch6RwIkCSskcXcYQo+VvJBVVEJyBVUJB5q2HS6uT p0rn16SpIoArHANdUBkmGU0jm5yCXlW1vHNCMapY5Y34oivSgAm4xBldwpff+2SR3ZQV 8MhQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=O26g8M6ostZv1aeKzHW/pFT7dt/N2wFbgw2MVaO5q7M=; b=ejPuN/18Scrp4sYMSD222QOlE0HfRAY86MysMMtwXciuJyL1S/CH3VafYlTkYHSc/w ztwUfsVjjosnSuIzhqttGELAa4r3i/53KgWp00K1r0SuVyTNqgAcqZ1dIDJKQa0Jaywn ngQSXmdqJ7uM2HHGhfFZJGWfgyZwxC+RpUdY8ZhfKRQ3B9w6/wd5+vc76TvmafERXVDl vL1qKz+tsSVlYa37fnfasnu+uee+aFR53xkJMJrBff3W4ZzuVi64E1ey0Owl9POb/Lyp DJDY6k/k2K4RXVOJpx7mPDr14vPDVtcoAMvp97/TDw6vDTAw+DITHRZet60hbR+/0yf6 Kdkg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKwmXWesuFn48P3PPa2IuYiOYUbqp9AkxHWq9rqEVeCfCsEHgNpsd/6Kdof9h1kW+XF+Vrgfy7giNPg2a5c
X-Received: by 10.129.108.211 with SMTP id h202mr11615719ywc.229.1464414851740; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.198.68 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEG3zt1ykuVTbi4_3nAAeCUiikXKR5HLj+8KG8U7yxo=NA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEG3zt1ykuVTbi4_3nAAeCUiikXKR5HLj+8KG8U7yxo=NA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 14:53:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3DnzzxeRE8QbkDHS9HCP2Lu8pTbR6o9_ZL21RNNqa2sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114da7460b2a010533e0a761
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/475X3_AfoWbwUuuxy4VBxkBdMK4>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 28 May 2016 05:54:15 -0000

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>; wrote:

> > the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy
> > for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented
> less/later.
>
> No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its
> meetings for a long time.
>

Maybe we disagree on what the term geographic diversity means? To me, a
policy that says "we schedule meetings on three continents because that's
where our participants are" makes it easier for people from diverse
locations to participate, and thus is a policy intended to facilitate
geographic diversity.

If the policy changed so that all meetings were in Amsterdam (say, because
it's easy to reach from both Asia and America, has a better human rights
record than Asian countries and and has better gun control and easier visa
access than the US), that would be an example of a non-diversity policy.