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

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 24 May 2016 06:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A180312DC79 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NLJCFFU_fN2h for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0466412D639 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k23so11966917oih.0 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 with SMTP id w127mr10267543oib.136.1464072258247; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 23:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 02:43:58 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Leslie Daigle <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d3564e0e494053390e2ff"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF discussion list <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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  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  Does that match what the IAOC



On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <>

> (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 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------