Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net> Fri, 27 May 2016 17:46 UTC
Return-Path: <mstjohns@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D174012D75D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:46:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.126
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.126 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VPjT6im7G84w for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-09v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:168]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A600B12D7AD for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 May 2016 10:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.235]) by comcast with SMTP id 6LpLbxW3Sd8266LpfbBolW; Fri, 27 May 2016 17:45:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1464371159; bh=clNfBJ2Cx7ozStpio4PRZicgoPT7i2CSMMhf0yV+dz4=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=h+4e5roffN57bHs3Nm97GysSRArhlIzsPmzvH47pWyUlB7w4LouIVT4WWuwnYuVWl eeZi8AqAUQCGV8K9L+vF7gtNIJlKwb3JQlZ+YQB+ojkLspppRqVOms+l94qpSBN+LH luarGWWc6E0R6UG3QzhiAiytRvIpgNGn4z3n5zfCSMLF3mZRaVeFa7lEPSV4AajZco s9nwOKzDrtQ6Hz5a+8Zwq5einikokNrBd7DANj8j8mMIGpPyGO3ccmFZw1TnCJCeh8 kzdRliQsBQjgVz5A4MnOdApbtaswcAEH0zYTJIExQ+Ta26IpQY1zpF0g0gbZLIcuux N/6jphIC9tlIg==
Received: from [IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3] ([IPv6:2601:148:c000:1951:ce8:defc:364c:54f3]) by resomta-po-11v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id zVly1s00A3g7ZFv01Vlytk; Fri, 27 May 2016 17:45:59 +0000
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr2wyE8SVq_FBWvp5ipVNhqMDs0QnvyL7jJtbKKxCr3bGA@mail.gmail.com> <096736229B32B700FCB16703@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <20160527171221.GA20298@gsp.org>
From: Michael StJohns <mstjohns@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <e6572c1c-486f-025d-2495-955f98bd976c@comcast.net>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:46:32 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160527171221.GA20298@gsp.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LfHbVDKGkCTDww29iYBm0_-czQI>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 17:46:03 -0000
On 5/27/2016 1:12 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:34:53AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote: >> It seems to me that, if the IETF does nothing, it could provide >> critics of the IETF community to assert that the IETF is >> insensitive to issues of diversity and that its role and work >> should be discounted because they represent only privileged >> "majority" interests. > I have reluctantly levelled this criticism because I believe it to > be true: the IETF's fixation on physical meetings means that only the > privileged few can attend: this mechanism selects for those with time > (their own or their employer's), money (their own or their employer's), > the ability to travel, the willingness to travel, the freedom to travel > (e.g., ability to leave family and work and other responsibilities), > the willingness to undertake all the risks associated with travel (legal > or otherwise, see current discussion thread), and so on. > > If all the time, money, and effort that has gone into this discussion > and this meeting had been applied to virtualizing meetings, it would > have done much more to broaden participation not just geographically > but demographically. And it would alleviate the need to ever have > this conversation again -- instead of necessitating it repeatedly, > something I'm sad to say that I think may become more rather than > less likely as political/legal conditions shift in various countries. > > ---rsk > The above comes under the heading of ignoring most of the evidence in favor of a specific conclusion. The IETF, as compared to almost every other standards and technical body in existence, has a VERY, VERY, VERY low barrier to entry. There are no user fees, and the only technology you really need is email to get involved. We have 1000s of people (10s of 1000s?) that have actively contributed to the IETF over the 30 or so years we've been in existence without ever setting foot in an IETF face to face meeting. So trying to conflate "participation" (your second paragraph) with "attendance" is just not supported by the evidence. The face to face meetings provide higher bandwidth interactions - bandwidth that is STILL not available through any conceivable virtualization technology, and may still be 10 or 20 years out. (And yes, I'm talking holograms and true virtual environments). We - the IETF - can neither buy this technology nor magically wish it into existence. The "state of the art" technology right now seems to be closer to Webex and its ilk. That technology barely supports a meeting of 3 people, let alone 1500 (or the magical 10000 participants that might show up if we're virtual). There continues to be benefit to the organization to hold face to face meetings. One of them is economic: fees from the meeting attendees generally defray a substantial portion of the costs of all of the "virtual" attendees participation. So complaining about them being the "privileged few" and trying to eliminate them will mostly be shooting the virtual attendees in the foot, unless we start charging the virtual attendees for the meeting as well. I would expect that we as an organization will continue to meet in person for probably the life of the organization. We as humans are a social species, and, even with all the sturm und drang that's been on the various mailing list with respect to the meeting venue topics - at the end we will find more benefit than not to meet in person. Mike
- Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 IAOC Chair
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 George Michaelson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Margaret Cullen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jakob Heitz
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [E] Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singa… Gross, Scott W
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mark Nottingham
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jose Saldana
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ole Troan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… otroan
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Leslie Daigle
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Michael Richardson
- RE: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Harish Pillay
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Melinda Shore
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… John C Klensin
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Carlos Martinez
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel Snyder
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joe Abley
- Re: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: R… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Aaron Morgan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Derek Jett
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Why we meet (was Re: [Recentattendees] Background… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Thompson, Jeff
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Success metrics Re: [Recentattendees] Background … Bill Mills
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… kathleen.moriarty.ietf
- Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recentatten… Melinda Shore
- RE: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jamie Baxter
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Hood
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Stephen Strowes
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Robert O'Callahan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Alexander Nevalennyy
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mary B
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… David Morris
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Randal Atkinson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian Ford (brford)