Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 13/04/17 09:30, Eric Gray wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to
> publicly justify their feelings on any topic.

No I did not argue that at all.

> 
> That is simply not the case.

I agree.

OTOH, if nobody were in fact to adamantly argue in pubic to
continue near term meetings in the US, then I do think that
(as I already said) that is something the IAOC ought factor
into their considerations.

S.


> 
> -- Eric
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]]
> On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44 To: Joel
> M. Halpern <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; IETF
> Announcement List <[e-mail]> Subject: Re: Update on
> feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
> 
> 
> Hiya,
> 
> On 13/04/17 01:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> 
>> I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to
>> meet in the US.
> 
> I do not doubt that many IETFers likely think that. And I almost
> agree with it.
> 
> My only problem is that I'm sadly no longer sure that the present
> tense is correct in your statement, which is just a shame.
> 
> I fully agree with your statement cast into the past tense.
> 
> I really hope that the future tense variant will be something with
> which I can agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated (to
> do with unpredictability).
> 
>> In contrast, I am quite sure that folks who felt strongly that we 
>> should not meet in the US understood that for that to happen, they
>>  needed to make their voices heard.
> 
> That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any
> folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to
> also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already
> voiced on the list. (I do realise there's a danger there of folks
> going OTT, so I hope we all impose a bit of self-restraint if making
> arguments either way.)
> 
> Note though that my query was with Leslie's assertion that the survey
> result and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant
> assertion. (I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant
> about any random or non-random topic:-)
> 
> Cheers, S.
>