Re: Interim step on meetings site feedback for sites currently under active consideration (off-topic)

[Corinne Cath <[e-mail]>]

excellent. thank you, best, corinne

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:44 AM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Corinne, Ted,
> At 01:48 19-04-2016, Corinne Cath wrote:
>
>> Just a quick question: are you intending on providing feedback to the
>> IAOC? If so, maybe it makes sense to coordinate a bit in order to prevent a
>> duplication of entries? Or will it be useful if multiple people point out
>> the same themes?
>>
>
> The IAOC Chair requested comments about a future IETF meeting in Paris
> (France),
> Montreal (Canada) or Copenhagen (Denmark) as the IAOC is considering
> whether the IETF can have a meeting in any of those countries.  It probably
> doesn't make much of a difference whether there is duplication of entries
> except to the person(s) who will be reading the messages to
> [e-mail] to extract the points of concern.
>
> At 05:02 19-04-2016, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> The IETF has a very strong tradition of commenting at length on the topic
>> at hand and hoping either that IETF leadership will spend the time to
>> review the whole thread and extract the salient points from it, or give up
>> in despair.   So what you are seeing here is very much the IETF tradition.
>>  Asking people to do better probably won't work, although it never hurts to
>> try.
>>
>
> I read the 36 messages in this thread.  Although some of the content is
> interesting, it does not look like the messages are directly related to the
> subject line.  Even though two Area Directors read some of the messages,
> the discussion is on an unmanaged thread.  It is more of an effort instead
> of a problem to extract the arguments made on this thread.  The problem is
> what to suggest given that they may be related to multiple IETF policies.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>