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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@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 A180312DC79 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 NLJCFFU_fN2h for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (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 0466412D639 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id k23so11966917oih.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3GKaDNFGyqdf32qCgpm03TDy2PwtuF18Zfr15rZ45zU=; b=YcQ7xNNO22TnctmQHg9Z8dudFhbcmRhyKGjcfzRWPB+yY18rYrCP+XR6G9TpQFp6Yo EtH1Dvo/mAFDHYjQ/N63l3FbLJVCL5P0PSTO37FAnOO1lp+svBqwl89WRUX/fWERFwMA t9fI6VfMlbvSxu9r26l1glg2pDYW8k0xBblMmqjhLpHkx23RhNp5/hwdW+UwNoFSQuLG YHq8okIIWVZW88D2LAW+sNK2LhG6J/Z+2B/18NH/EsJYn9QoWhCRMW7fIZk45BB7tkhB aojiwMwD3WlOvsUcopqBJI9Q28cELUcNg2mh+7tN334YTJC1A7u62mbMf13gUOCFgwXq puSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3GKaDNFGyqdf32qCgpm03TDy2PwtuF18Zfr15rZ45zU=; b=dTTDx5Aa4lPiIMUzAFE6oGEw9LNoXgYHMgm87XeIP44jZwikanIPRfhaaaA+hJAlzn f0npND6GqznmpN19xGs7gcUyAFos8UErRaRYeBa5VXS5iovrOSpgHi14eWujr1B0F2zS e1E4phNnfGJ20fQ9lg1X5og+cxfw51R0r8jLcqERmsAlR4KZ/tbuofVe5ywfbpV6qM5P gmEfPgVYGpMa0bYTh3i8Nn14Sxx66PZtep7kVkXeHhbnDaLDNdEL6FpDwN04AoiIK7Q0 y0HfXRwjoNA1bGf0Jn7qEUEuBZW57Cf8nw6yWKXZiNetfuSjTWd/B4SB6Cn9TpxdgCGJ 5xOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWjmPXkrjlkB/ZUHDLcC6E4WpLsXnQLes7AugXf39o/D3Wp+5saFbLn+zKDEIbe/RcaUXCn1Q1R09HQyg==
X-Received: by 10.202.98.133 with SMTP id w127mr10267543oib.136.1464072258247; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 02:43:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBGMghN1Q5rVDTBrrXyebzRvU+tVYVbptso7aTGpEKprw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d3564e0e494053390e2ff
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CH8RQZl1wA4CTcw2pKOwqeo7aFw>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 06:44:20 -0000

(Forgive the top posting--airport thumb typing).

Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go
to mtgvenue@ietf.org.  For the short term IETF 100 discussion, I didn't see
an explicit pointer for where to participate.  Based on traffic to date, I
expect that to stay on ietf@ietf.org.  Does that match what the IAOC
expects?

thanks,

Ted

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
wrote:

>
> (Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering
> some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).
>
> Again, I see 2 burning issues here:
>
> 1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, and
>
> 2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore
>
> We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty
> much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on
> “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies
> after we settle out “1/“.
>
> Spelling it out a little bit:
>
> What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of)
> the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been that we
> should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to
> attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect that people make
> their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize
> that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.
>
> If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make
> requirements include other things — such as suitability for family
> attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the
> experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community —
> that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, the IAOC needs to
> have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion
> should take place on the aforementioned mtgvenue@ietf.org mailing list,
> where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.
>
> I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to
> detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone
> (especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in
> silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).
>
> And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.
>
> So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100
> will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or
> never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).
>
> Leslie.
>
>
> [1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or
> there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of
> the mtgvenue dialog.
>
>
> --
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Leslie Daigle
> Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
> ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>