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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

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

Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go
to [e-mail].  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 [e-mail].  Does that match what the IAOC
expects?

thanks,

Ted

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <[e-mail]>
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 [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail]
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>