Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration (off-topic)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Corinne, Ted,
At 01:48 19-04-2016, Corinne Cath wrote:
>Just a quick question: are you intending on providing feedback to 
>the IAOC? If so, maybe it makes sense to coordinate a bit in order 
>to prevent a duplication of entries? Or will it be useful if 
>multiple people point out the same themes?

The IAOC Chair requested comments about a future IETF meeting in 
Paris (France),
Montreal (Canada) or Copenhagen (Denmark) as the IAOC is considering 
whether the IETF can have a meeting in any of those countries.  It 
probably doesn't make much of a difference whether there is 
duplication of entries except to the person(s) who will be reading 
the messages to [e-mail] to extract the points of concern.

At 05:02 19-04-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
>The IETF has a very strong tradition of commenting at length on the 
>topic at hand and hoping either that IETF leadership will spend the 
>time to review the whole thread and extract the salient points from 
>it, or give up in despair.   So what you are seeing here is very 
>much the IETF tradition.   Asking people to do better probably won't 
>work, although it never hurts to try.

I read the 36 messages in this thread.  Although some of the content 
is interesting, it does not look like the messages are directly 
related to the subject line.  Even though two Area Directors read 
some of the messages, the discussion is on an unmanaged thread.  It 
is more of an effort instead of a problem to extract the arguments 
made on this thread.  The problem is what to suggest given that they 
may be related to multiple IETF policies.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy