IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 24 May 2016 23:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 ABA3112D16C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 16:55:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 NFFBpQRp5Kur for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 16:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 853D312B008 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 16:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF6C2009E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 20:01:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B3C638BF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 19:54:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
In-Reply-To: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:54:57 -0400
Message-ID: <6859.1464134097@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SKIDMA2ZrrbCabacq9gkCLCF0Rs>
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:55:01 -0000

Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> wrote:
    > 2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

...

    > And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.

    > So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100
    > will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again,
    > or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision
    > goes).

I'd like to remind that this meeting is in November, which is when nomcom
interviews.

I don't feel the IAOC has taken enough account of this in the past, and I
don't feel that the choice for IETF100 took this well enough into account.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email