IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 18:08 UTC

Return-Path: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
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 E8A9812D190 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 9TzQ5VfucBF8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5DD212D178 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id tb2so38082848pac.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YKwVruX3VRVekGLWF6U49DLeXohMH8UTCh35Kmo9dyQ=; b=viAtC9EWiSRyZunleF/x7mWvhfcP9Bn9ZG+f42gv13YJJBiE0zdI74f3iDIwmKJ85A An1AKnaLjWtcB/iJWV/KlbdsRmixTFWx6YHHKtVBuJJwHlW0Toh2HnU2Uz3UrZL2bl5v 8Kb/r0BRTv2Rh+vZNYBCDCzji+ZpnXN+7aFSTN/lGiJOGIoBf4y/GX2JjNiPfaVMCoT5 QnV6LeWxFYYn5wEVaN8Vcf/T3wFPywfiDC9vGqVBWsKR6DebECzLGeFLyTY3naB+XgFN SXAmwafGHGB1Z2HOnQ1+SvWyeGqXzgXb3jFYh3WVmQ7T75eKqY0rw8tCwOSWDVskQfin su+w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YKwVruX3VRVekGLWF6U49DLeXohMH8UTCh35Kmo9dyQ=; b=Dbio+G87Vd01Z7uiyznLreEnufdZKy2GwvJ7fBOZL0wMctSh02pqOavq1xBn7BZFfl wQ8evFlGjZ7KOZYozwXrkFMcVAnNfKJEfbCaP/EWlXmJthvkQ1S6bIodyK7iwPPKskaU kuyT0che4XFEmc+Od3+0ecXLo1QFOV83Lw7G93HRJ0vGx160hFktF+5sQWTlLabjcsdz iuOLXJ39KRYJri2z3FyWTes459Hc+2M19r56vvlwH/iBDucxG94coTx0Ri1ZJtc5rN5Y 2BIPWMJXjlRaaIjJ3DyM9IUuAi+mlQEPMXV8whZ/0+qsF6aKFirKlK9fEChA2oIEobKf urlg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXtz0Ydpsnu3Ah6+gjaOgd2HZBNxm8d/TrxrmhXiCo2i9K877rKIDEH6Rv6NqWplQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.176.103 with SMTP id ch7mr21184008pac.20.1463940506494; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local (209-193-29-52-radius.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [209.193.29.52]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id m86sm40788062pfj.77.2016.05.22.11.08.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 22 May 2016 11:08:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com> <88c09ff2-51d0-d419-1253-ddd8e6049397@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMBi3pR+N3E21j=gNAKNNndX8NvpnwEJcNAYpJGpx6A6mw@mail.gmail.com> <093f7f6f-4d4a-334e-e476-a0b562bd9fd7@cisco.com> <5741EEE6.2040302@gmail.com> <c4aeef86-5c0b-1858-3340-1d1cf4dffcc3@cisco.com>
From: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5741F491.7080908@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 10:04:01 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c4aeef86-5c0b-1858-3340-1d1cf4dffcc3@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9CMaMB-Sdd4hsucHXAW2qpc6rfQ>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:08:30 -0000

On 5/22/16 10:02 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Sorry- but there is no doubt that f2f meetings are high bandwidth
> compared to any electronic form of communication.  And I'm saying that
> if we're going to have them we have a choice of who we disadvantage, for
> surely we will disadvantage someone.  This discussion is about how that
> choice is made.

Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do not
actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than avoiding
disadvantaging those who do.

Melinda

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email