IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Sun, 22 May 2016 04:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 A6AEE12D1BC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 h4wGt4sq5rox for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22f.google.com (mail-oi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22f]) (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 497D712D1AE for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id x19so234200512oix.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+b3Teoc741PzpkywQmV/4V3jcK39w4KAa2x02Bu84ek=; b=xUOvvNZ9Nm+8pN2M3DVi0QMn+r9ARblLxhX2NTJd7Jo4qorxLbbd4rxwO+zoBMWFmc oa1gKU2xB8BJZ6FX+gZOpJm6EuH3v7FQmWiIbJspdmOl8sYBfVCbBTLtw0pnAh9FqTKE 73IcN0l/500EryZWOOSRLWA3TW/S375v3EeE9P8yiuxx6oG5NXxvbCLCS92j1Xy1dA68 PqZleyBJCcLM5PI7MNb0rgaRwGI6M3QZ1uzT+13juQzFKyjutAan9Y4rFeol0HCjymwd qOZ6Snf0+BZWqq5yfEA7cFBYD5Y7182I221HpPT9Tp5avgEzijX0kw74I9s/adoskyes lAQw==
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=+b3Teoc741PzpkywQmV/4V3jcK39w4KAa2x02Bu84ek=; b=mK8pc9ml7fllmozP4qWges2i1lSTDnUd1sTFw8mL+PEkHmhHIOWQvUYJgIuM5IOcLb 4e2BS+9MZVcM23LDbqTzgCTCEUafLpyOGzY+31VEd4RPKXavlwK0BR0NmaN7EXMrKTdI yTCsywNJJC1bcM7Ui5x6SULrg1X1nYx6EY1LKomuFz2xJ++PX/bNLSWQHXcf+L3iNK1p yyp8GuAh840WY8tiBnfxKubRB8K6ixL3c7JG5jH75ufzLbrIjk+UonaU0pwIof6yAngI Un3BfSdV73YQvGNp5xY7vjUBkpYWJLqFCIkR3Tcile6/JrAMQvYlVeZjfBdrTBogunsz uLrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWSspGz/QhKMVOocP9ySDYsKitEG8R3sQlcircofUcLN8jJNpH6tyGXPgC/2VNyWkKeMRrjJoGIJV5fkA==
X-Received: by 10.157.1.140 with SMTP id e12mr6360094ote.180.1463890616682; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.195.137 with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <55BAE36899C13FA1D0565FAF@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2ceffd31-c78f-f6f7-116e-85498b4413f1@gmail.com>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:16:37 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMAcQL_NnmSjMCnOCr9C6uOgzt92AfLNbc0n6U+O+-exBg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fd90c328f2f05336698e8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/VqjbahZ6Z6Avi_lpiKU_WVCzIAU>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, 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: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:16:59 -0000

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> ...
> > In particular, "nice place to bring family or companion(s)" is
> > either a selection criterion or it isn't.  I'm not talking about
> > where it is in the list of priorities and tradeoffs; I'm talking
> > about whether or not it is on the list.
>
> It could be on the list if we believe that it has a significant
> impact on attendance and therefore on financial viability. But
> that's surely secondary to 'getting the work done' and 'getting the
> best range of people to the meeting'.
>

So, I have to confess myself somewhat surprised at the "could be" above.
The IETF currently provides a companion program with special registration,
a welcome reception, and facilities for coordination.  Making the travel
family friendly seems to me *currently* on the list of efforts we undertake.

We can change that, of course, but it seems deciding to prioritize novel
meeting places over family friendliness is retrograde in a different way
than the one Melinda has already pointed out.

Ted Hardie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email