Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 24/05/16 07:43, Ted Hardie wrote:
> (Forgive the top posting--airport thumb typing).
> 
> Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go
> to [e-mail].  For the short term IETF 100 discussion, I didn't see
> an explicit pointer for where to participate.  Based on traffic to date, I
> expect that to stay on [e-mail].  Does that match what the IAOC
> expects?

I've a similar question: there is also ongoing discussion of
changing the default policy for how the IAOC handle business
in general, and not just associated with meeting venues. I
assume that ought also remain on [e-mail] but be good to
get the IAOC's take on that too when you answer the above.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> thanks,
> 
> Ted
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> (Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering
>> some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).
>>
>> Again, I see 2 burning issues here:
>>
>> 1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, and
>>
>> 2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore
>>
>> We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty
>> much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on
>> “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies
>> after we settle out “1/“.
>>
>> Spelling it out a little bit:
>>
>> What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of)
>> the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been that we
>> should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to
>> attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect that people make
>> their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize
>> that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.
>>
>> If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make
>> requirements include other things — such as suitability for family
>> attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the
>> experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community —
>> that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, the IAOC needs to
>> have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion
>> should take place on the aforementioned [e-mail] mailing list,
>> where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.
>>
>> I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to
>> detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone
>> (especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in
>> silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).
>>
>> And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.
>>
>> So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100
>> will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or
>> never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).
>>
>> Leslie.
>>
>>
>> [1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or
>> there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of
>> the mtgvenue dialog.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Leslie Daigle
>> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
>> [e-mail]
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>