Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 11 April 2016 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 0FE6512ED66 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 VNAquDUhudX5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:02:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com (mail-lf0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0A3912D0DF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id e190so153898077lfe.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=We51j/dp2gBWPcivmpqbzG0oRMgfjLX6gtmjI/hLFEM=; b=yg1fo2IeruDcjTqtzjmNYedup3u9BZzahDgmwln1gdswvZQ/1yQzzNcpCkqgyeAgGb caiVm39pTNgmet37vGwlWYbwemANeFAXPdKMyWDd+iAIfEK2Z/z+CXjaTNf5tTZLxZh3 eWJEa4N/VqXVHVUsCU0KgzJ26bs270cE3tzWP7BgGSmk8uRDGaDpmfHy13BfI8oVARvA GITdDmzD5Y2WXtkBSwC4f+TbTxQIBKKXu5+hdMpT8MZ5j7C+3nSxPjK7LSqb8+k/ea9d sgdYoIJbzsENwbMynHtyPW9vNcVu2tcaspR8VQi1GuO2xco7wcUSNi5mPG/v+f0s3uB2 ZKqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=We51j/dp2gBWPcivmpqbzG0oRMgfjLX6gtmjI/hLFEM=; b=HwNTvIwQiMY/DFmkgMiOea023hG2l9CJu/in4xshihSzoJqtQxS8tPc0y8LPp9/RwJ 4tVXh9H7Dl+P1QbYivIgwhP2Y4v/MfbliyBksmEWyph0QPTUqEOJftpVsp6GIPTb0jea purueZI2NvNNovvX5EmscI6OJ0TlDKa3dtyv2+re0hBYRPSoxpkjYD9yVT9Z1IrbNnsS UrU1NyTEydKiDoqtw7hb679bZIcx74fTLF5X0BMpqKzEXPeOjwKMvaYBM4e/XbdxV1UV fiPdarb0oZvD6Vl605IIIPsyTikEhYypfQbHZuyolmq0ueO16TrLlTHvFQoEy8ovvnY6 Ww7w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUZU4AhlE6CnPuru9BMtvl5ANNDGTXAtig4c3IRQskES5MxEQm+HC6DEUA++8GJcZeuUewivoGmw2+HoQ==
X-Received: by 10.25.73.212 with SMTP id w203mr1540346lfa.22.1460379753783; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:02:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 06:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
In-Reply-To: <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com>
References: <m2fuuu75ls.wl%randy@psg.com> <87wpo5a8im.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:01:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1kej35TSzDGH1QzNgJ9LvK2DMH-PFxDVUgvv_n_LPkvVw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b1592763859053035283a
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UxKDB056GcfjUM0cpRF3Uz38wag>
Cc: Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org>, ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:02:40 -0000

Also, if you live in a country with censorship, or with low bandwidth, it's
possible that the only way to attend an IETF meeting will be in person.
It would be nice if there were a bright line to draw on one side of which
is total inclusiveness, but there is not.   We need to make both kinds of
meeting work.

What Stephen said is right--the IAOC needs to systematically, rather than
informally, analyze what it is that needs to be done in confidence, and
expose the rest to public view.   I know this is non-trivial, and I do not
say this in the spirit of bashing the IAOC, who work very hard for us with
little reward other than our complaining.

If I were on the IAOC right now, I would be thinking about how to get off
of it.   I've been in the situation of having what seemed like a big chunk
of the IETF upset at me, and it's pretty soul-crushing.   Nevertheless, I
think what Stephen proposes is the thing the IAOC can do that is most
likely to prevent future woe of this kind.

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 11 Apr 2016, at 1:45 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:05:19AM +0000, Andrew Allen wrote:
> >> We could be left with the only possible venue being a cruise ship
> >> sailing in international waters - [snip]
> >
> > There is another alternative -- one I've raised repeatedly.
> >
> > Don't have physical meetings.  Then this entire problem space simply
> > vanishes, along with the need for a discusion thread that's now over a
> > hundred messages.  (And it's not the first one.)  YES, it's replaced by a
> > different problem space, which roughly works out to "how can everything
> > be done virtually?"  but given that this is the *Internet* engineering
> > task force I have no doubt that the collective expertise is more than
> > capable of dealing with that.
>
> I don’t believe that this technology exists. People have been singing the
> praise of Meetecho in IETF 95, and yet remote participation is nothing like
> being in the room. And the “virtual interim” meetings are nothing like
> physical meetings. There is a reason why airlines make great money from
> business travel and don’t shut down for the winter.
>
> > Particularly if all the discussion, effort,
> > and expense going into the logistics of physical meetings is redirected
> > into virtual ones instead.
>
> Yeah, perhaps, some day when we’re all wearing virtual reality headsets
> and our avatars are hanging out in a virtual venue, and we all have
> sufficient equipment and bandwidth to handle all that. We’re not there yet.
>
> > I really can't take any of the platitudes about "inclusion" seriously
> > until that happens -- because as long as the IETF persists with physical
> > meetings, most people *will* be excluded due to cost, distance, time,
> > legal climate, personal safety, etc.  The IETF is, even if accidentally,
> > selecting for the elite few who are fortunate enough to be attend.
>
> Virtual meetings with the technology we have today makes it very hard for
> people with mediocre English to follow the discussion. The “I don’t quite
> follow what you’re saying” look does not translate well to the kind of
> video we can use today. That extends even to people with relatively good
> English (for non-native speakers) like me.
>
> Yoav
>