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

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
> an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting NOW 
> for planning purposes.


What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a 
long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable 
deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and 
that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs 
to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.

While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I 
think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final, 
long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if 
complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential 
destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to claim 
anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real possibility.

 From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to 
be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a different 
location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to be, it 
sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of action 
you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion and this 
is merely an exercise in justification.

/a