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

Michal Krsek <> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FE812D197 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 usK3rjzv1NGv for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50E4012D1A8 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b73so1392604lfb.3 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lSBpUEmp/S1mLxjDuQRxiWM+gZS1oqQHfFmLZ4TKwY8=; b=1FWW85D97GBpiKWFcpZg8ZiTpweou0lRkqy3+3GLmhvsc32IlwfHN5mmTtWGy8YM+Q +M7TKgkVglToZbUGxX03la0RctiqLXoWbu+1lBZ9XfS1OGSoWaCvoIreKgx/lDhWZR3v GcMmtUR8zUxp7r2+2CFwgUn7kKngz0SJIZjSnaXmJyqCDG5jvLoFurZx8O43MZTWFKNM CIvpVdH4aOP/FE9tCnIPxtr7hXh13Ce4ggq+LNSPaPd3FuusQrlgUwGdPNayBuaffe9Y pcWwP2G3K1lvyhxAZ0NzT0dXuTca4zwfopSEiZkicFZ5EaADLvkcszxqLTtCFz3SR09U Ap4A==
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=lSBpUEmp/S1mLxjDuQRxiWM+gZS1oqQHfFmLZ4TKwY8=; b=Qsokv7pPgei6ZftOBWoGUDalEW+TAXiE/qbKgtk5Dcj9VsIbFp/MSUWthP1TecXyhn 9Rl40Cb04DpVF6p1h1ty2OQcOib5fDiQrWxkSIDCDCg0J1DAM4t169VCk/pi5JvxjOhZ lXx9Wu44DP4aPGxxduFwokxfFeoa+JUOV38m6aDYB93HGwluCttXfn4dUqLzL5yuRTJS PvD6PiCzA7Q12b7v5HkgOfSedEzuxhuNMZ9jlT2w+oWjrftK5tXu3cQ3LpZRY+QTSq35 gKuQUzg6tMok4xQfpsICKidnM/xCyYCTNw2CjnR0n1VoStXqB0KyHnBgUJlxaG246vZt dj+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIkZPhzEHLMjn/Jde1Bsr1XP/Cpv17A4Xyx+Ulm83Fp5LIi1N3GPkWvqAnvR9iRGg==
X-Received: by with SMTP id dd5mr5752795wjb.31.1464208508218; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Michals-MacBook-Air.local ([]) by with ESMTPSA id s196sm9690856wme.23.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 13:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Michal Krsek <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 22:35:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; 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: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:35:25 -0000

Hi Melinda,

>> question.   I think it is plain why you think that it is not the right
>> question.   However, by changing the topic, you are asserting that your
>> belief about what the right question is is more important than either
>> the IAOC's beliefs or the beliefs of other IETFers who believe that it
>> was a reasonable question.
> I absolutely don't think "Can we have a successful meeting in
> Singapore" is the right question.  "We" can have a very
> successful meeting, depending on the value of "we."
> So, when we talk about "we," who's included?

we, as a community. Successful meeting does not need personal presence 
of any particular person.

I wish we have ideal place where no participants have issues (with their 
orientation, budget, nationality, politics, work, children ...), but we 
do not have such a place.


P.S: There is also other view at the problem - there are cultures that 
do not allow people to express their opinions openly in the list (as 
they are losing credit while complaining). Do we forgive those people?