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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 E837812D17E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gAY9PPNT0Swn for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8AD812D190 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5AD8203B2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:13:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A04638BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:06:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605241228030.97977@rabdullah.local>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <D7078B9A-AF4B-4D40-A8D7-CD7C42DE3218@cooperw.in> <D95B9AE8-5B5A-4882-A371-3C5825179FC8@thinkingcat.com> <cbbc3530-fe39-a9f3-084a-0458c9961f5b@nostrum.com> <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com> <ff65ada9-8285-101a-9b0c-f9dc26eb4cdb@nostrum.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605241228030.97977@rabdullah.local>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:06:38 -0400
Message-ID: <32364.1464206798@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6mokD1d2KrI_kkTFmJ7xVL5swEI>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:06:41 -0000

Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com> wrote:
    > Yet we seem to do that all the time so let me ask you this:

    > Suppose we could predict# that some number of attendees from China
    > would be denied* entry into the US or Canada or Argentina at an
    > upcoming meeting. Should we conclude that holding the meeting in those
    > locations is unacceptable and seek a relocation?

I believe that we should conclude that, and that we ought to seek a
relocation as well.  It would have been nice if this had somehow gone up to
the US Senate along with the IANA Transition stuff this week.

    > * By "denied" I mean no response received about visa application, visa
    > denied, visa approved months after meeting took place, etc.  In one
    > IETF meeting, 77 people from China applied for letters of invitation
    > and visas, 27 were able to receive the visas in time to attend.

I note that it included one IAB member who was not returned for a second term.
Would the nomcom have made a different decision had an in-person interview
been possible?  I don't know.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-