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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 24 May 2016 06:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 0FF6612D756 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.727
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 W5QAFS44bct9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B65A912D51C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA1DBE47; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:56:58 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C_lNmrBrbH9p; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:56:56 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.210] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D03CBE39; Tue, 24 May 2016 07:56:56 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1464073016; bh=g+jmAdKVhONoxwCHSXxhk9YOFIW3T+SDq3oi7HmAVa0=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=zvg99lTFMMO/7rRwm1wpTkc3+L9MmDL8sGBVWyUd82+s7gVMBoncVP7GeeGJM+36B RxFKRg98CB1gY7oPybYQGyyFMp33mnunfkuwmwVww1nmIEu0M7nfe8olEnWsBA2x+q nh4QJCEMxMM2qvee4ApqOgQtK3vx2/OvoL0U1BOs=
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <CA+9kkMBGMghN1Q5rVDTBrrXyebzRvU+tVYVbptso7aTGpEKprw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5743FB38.8000609@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 07:56:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMBGMghN1Q5rVDTBrrXyebzRvU+tVYVbptso7aTGpEKprw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010808030703080608090401"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4uLEesruKOKgSkbsuGIJ0pQjG-A>
Cc: IETF discussion list <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: Tue, 24 May 2016 06:57:03 -0000


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 mtgvenue@ietf.org.  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 ietf@ietf.org.  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 ietf@ietf.org 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 <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
> 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 mtgvenue@ietf.org 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
>> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>