Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sat, 21 May 2016 22:02 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 7602C12B078 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:02:52 -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 rF1ykDVr7d9p for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:02:50 -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 F10E812B00D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 15:02:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC645BE2C; Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:46 +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 W16MnXS_KP7w; Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:45 +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 F0AA7BDD0; Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:44 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1463868165; bh=o+Qhosoj66dlDcxGT18Za1AvxFyUQPgWK45oxxJK304=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZfAeLCjlY87VrC8L3Xu6Ap6iRaKLb18rMslVuDAa3ph4bctiolQv4RIz9Vuk2QvF+ 8PFLxe5IvdOmKStR8TjAAUscrz+63/NLNt1t/fqPK6YKuG/1uBeyj3K2QDGnWOPvZ7 8u9C8Zp1nkJPIZ7tMrlX8a3MAC/fk7jTtwPd5T68=
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: "Peterson, Jon" <jon.peterson@neustar.biz>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <5740DB04.9070305@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:02:44 +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: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms010003040302000709060204"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9BW0MXHFwnDfQ4D6B7WRyo8yHvs>
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, 21 May 2016 22:02:52 -0000


On 21/05/16 22:38, Peterson, Jon wrote:
> 
> On 5/21/16 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> 
>> I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having a
>> diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a
>> 'business' reason - making use of everybody's talents to the
>> maximum - and that surely is the fundamental reason for the whole
>> site selection policy anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist
>> and vacation opportunities for family members. So...
> 
> 
> There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though.
> While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as
> just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than
> that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this
> organization, and developing professional and personal relationships
> here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity,
> but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a
> celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more
> than usual.
> 
> 
> When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around
> longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of
> where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a
> meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be
> celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a
> consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we
> should do about it.
> 
> 
> We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it
> sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think
> there's a further question about this specific meeting location that
> we should resolve with some urgency.

I think we should celebrate at IETF-128. We can start by
practising at IETF-96 and then have fun every 32 meetings
thereafter. We ought not be ruled by decimalisation:-)

More seriously, I'd have to agree with folks who've said
or implied that deciding what's on the list of criteria
and where is hard, and to be frank, I'm not at all sure
if I'd include family accompaniment and if I did, I don't
know where I'd put it relative to other priorities. So I'd
say it's not unreasonable that the IAOC are similarly
puzzled. We ought not aim for perfection at that level of
granularity I think. (Transparency and effectiveness, yes,
perfection, no.)

That IMO is all the more reason why the IAOC need to move
to a default-open policy to the fullest extent they can,
which I believe is way more than has been the case to date.
I suspect that that opinion perhaps now has the kind of
critical mass that someone might declare it as a rough
consensus of the IETF.

In the meantime, wrt IETF-100, at this point I do think we
ought not make it a mega-celebration of any kind, regardless
of where it's held, but we can finesse that via powers of 2
(as per the above) or in whatever other way works.

I'm ok to leave the decision as to whether to stick with
Singapore or not to the IAOC. I don't think there's any way
we could decide that by consensus. I would just hope that
the IAOC can re-assure the rest of us that they have
explored all avenues before they come to a conclusion. (And
that they can explain those avenues when the time is right.)

S.

> 
> 
> Jon Peterson
> 
> Neustar, Inc.
>