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

Ted Hardie <> Sun, 22 May 2016 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2501012B056; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 ht1P5KuRsaPg; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7D7712B02F; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j1so4219062oih.3; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=eGU+NB83R85MG1HlDm14pEWoeHTlUaF26keeykU+Mvs=; b=i47BqOBjntov193wbaisbuIWNQUzZskI8wst4qPURJj4ibvZKBWiFiluDbIiShIQds c/fQIi5T6+GTGBdzRhoI+nHo3humQdvZSaniWixnnwXAE+Fo6KkZ+ouSpVtZ7cbrWuK+ lIlhdiHv31Hy6VwrfMeAHGyWpLiOLAIf1MNFl61jk9AmEUYa2rRpgn79XLX8Jl4c4Ciu H96rSJxbNKiwW9phAZWx/Y07YtYWQnLLMD0Ymhx+NaflVU2Ob7Zu6xUbF22WluM9ZSi+ TEYdZWh9OchV8nyVzimv5iGpX46/+ohw7ssv0eBwOy1QiUg0CvrmZpDuobcG0I/wfIYN U/DA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=eGU+NB83R85MG1HlDm14pEWoeHTlUaF26keeykU+Mvs=; b=Wtp8KZ4E7EmVHH0eq+LW6t3rmOhilAO5qJXZ2F6NfkQQyKH/mFWjIN+TfNE43OXOD5 aTLUqAR+tenQ6ErZveWXnenk05kWIY/gRQRcrDwAFlI0C642zPB8U7Mz7a3TBdJHlyug LPdnq16UKfyJFZ6mYhXCcItd8Cqvus8hZlFbQy/Idaprch+FQ8NM4dmz7g4zXOoCpnyr SIW5yt4UR0HL3+i7Y4yYcsSpy6DLoe0wUVUfwtFppULu15eObEBpUAz0FJzF2UVKbdP/ iFfy7ORCcck+SYmbkp3m3RNgG2D4tSlNC6NP/7E5cn5pSBx5/b6mSEjfJXyPbmazTufA /dKg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXp9plGULuX1F+znzibRaRLQsq3T/iEQLlf756ZfzumfVcECVJ+SQd3my6ONKM2IKsPHYJ1WXzZjzLuWA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e12mr7067966ote.180.1463921302239; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 22 May 2016 05:48:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 08:48:02 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fd90c3301b905336dbd31"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, IETF list <>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 12:48:24 -0000

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:17 AM, Stephen Farrell <>

> Hi Ted,
> I agree with the above, but see a major problem: we have no
> way to fairly consider economic inclusiveness that I can see,
> and from my POV that far outweighs any other form of lack of
> inclusiveness when it comes to affecting the ability of
> potential IETF participants to get to meetings.

I think you're quite right.  There are a lot of ways to mitigate it
(sliding scale meeting fees, subsidies for travel and lodging where needed,
actively seeking lower cost facilities and hotels), but they all scale
poorly and don't address the basic issue.  The best long term solution is
no doubt moving the meetings to a mode where remote participation is
equivalent for those wanting to do work.  That's something we're already
working on, but we could do more.

Until we do that, though, I remind you that the economic issue cross-cuts
the others; there are folks affected both by the economics and the other
issues which have been raised.