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

Melinda Shore <> Sun, 22 May 2016 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DD9E12D0AB for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8vIW70C0y1_m for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03669128874 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id qo8so55275441pab.1 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=juOwHP159gIXXzQtNxwkAFUcUQcO7m8k/xdvDlhl6h4=; b=ZqoPK20z2rm45Mk6y+wga0krF0qi+2NaGSOFAp1ei7RZw7ooJaxBxjPcmEvXZOjCA8 93SiEpghhzOzneOe7Lybo3J2g6zdEwUC34wOdIZLKjbOqBhEFNjWyKOHo/LcHTlR9t2H hfaciZQYXXenMAY1EVOlBv/8E7GH+dIQtTPy4DrFEMZe4PDnQJHZDe2OS2DyO2u+ylLv k1sseoBPXIH4k55BKEs8+1W1m9Q0nOR97WvdDqh9gl0SDGQTLJNa4Mo4+OL5EGk1SWo7 ZxnVrD1+fTIeAn+OZoE03rMZssy7lKG9FpxZ6HZpVJzSHsPlRFe7jOULF3482KeM+o9f Tnfw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=juOwHP159gIXXzQtNxwkAFUcUQcO7m8k/xdvDlhl6h4=; b=iicwtOLsQp3Nh5FSV14tEQghJ3JFYIHftK/NxesFgq+UbYxrtmCaqaYGqDPzthe798 ZsPf8BdPJvutfX/sNHbLWUgg+VNAzhRrRg8GQYyQSbitDZzbjzod2lnkFThG26HEFGrU wONtt30Ob7uW8V3pg5+5Eh/cdw55ufPe8Qh4oELJLa2UnhzcsDjfqa0SaqR7rkdIYhd+ xoEEEiTWhMZDYQDQNp4wCmgREyzvdY3a9BLyGSTzwoPZSmcIEs2pQuL8Qp5BAHStUKPA fpAfyWEbpgRK5pz1jT/wB+sdB1AEQlau4J/tqZ/PeK6DQj/OcStR2t56HrdJx30g+zgs lqag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUYJbgxQ0dinBrgpo650tzymtGf9YIgh7hYC5fuakFNcm1S5zK8LxSBpBQ3jrbFWA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id i10mr21617103paw.31.1463939055508; Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 28sm40700198pfr.89.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 22 May 2016 10:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 09:39:50 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 17:44:17 -0000

On 5/22/16 7:18 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to
> new members because of their governments' laws.  They need to be
> considered in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have
> not been, and often aren't.

You know, I've been arguing for a long time that we would
benefit a lot from making the organization less dependent on
meetings, and the feedback I've gotten from you and others
taking the position that it's okay to meet in locations
like Singapore is that no, we really need face-to-face discussions
and hallway conversations.  Early in this discussion everybody
agreed that yes, our top priority is getting work done, but
here you are suggesting that maybe getting work done can take
a backseat to making sure that people who are not currently
involved and not doing any IETF work can attend.  Then there's
the notion that we do our work on mailing list being chucked
aside to be replaced by the flat statement that if someone
cannot attend a meeting we are foreclosing participation by
them (with the implied suggestion that the requirements of
people who are not yet involved trump the requirements of
some long-time participants).

I am not a fan of process documents and meta documents and all
the other sorts of documents that, along with our problematic
position(s) on diversity, make us look and function like the
traditional telecomm standards bodies but I think that in this
case we'd clearly benefit from a normative statement about what
the actual goal of meetings is, along with trying to develop
some understanding of what the cost of missing a meeting is
(or should be).