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

"Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com> Mon, 23 May 2016 15:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ldaigle@thinkingcat.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 2BA8212D962 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=thinkingcat.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 mUcO9Vw21aq6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a102.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FE9E12D960 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:14:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a102.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a102.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1D02004890E; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:14:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=thinkingcat.com; h=from:to :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=thinkingcat.com; bh=CP6QAVDdk9YnF2 X7YyqEd1/PZ/M=; b=gAxSHk5xsBOgoA2KI90HidAjoCWN+Uol3ZI1fRG0yRNrrI tgRX1OF4OBwxmNUzp/BWVlrF2DyTr7AkRAo3Ket214ZEqlSs6HrHeGHhWBn/1RDv UdZ9xSLl1xLv6QEw08gkQ5FazJ3f1EOgDXmrXzu+ld61KaEltSJvTaBK7nMgI=
Received: from [193.0.29.36] (dhcp-29-36.ripemtg.ripe.net [193.0.29.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: leslie@oceanpurl.net) by homiemail-a102.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D2DE20048913; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Leslie Daigle" <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
To: "IETF discussion list" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 11:14:06 -0400
Message-ID: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.4r5234)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/WEqrM4u1xzPcapFsIEoBYMyEy20>
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, 23 May 2016 15:14:17 -0000

(Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering 
some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).

Again, I see 2 burning issues here:

1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, 
and

2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided 
pretty much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the 
outcome on “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under 
updated policies after we settle out “1/“.

Spelling it out a little bit:

What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding 
of) the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been 
that we should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our 
participants to attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect 
that people make their own choices about attending or not attending a 
meeting, and recognize that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.

If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make 
requirements include other things — such as suitability for family 
attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make 
the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our 
community — that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, 
the IAOC needs to have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I 
argue that discussion should take place on the aforementioned 
mtgvenue@ietf.org mailing list, where the meeting venue selection 
requirements document is being discussed.

I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the 
attention to detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that 
fits everyone (especially including those who have been more comfortable 
suffering in silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).

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).

Leslie.


[1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or 
there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part 
of the mtgvenue dialog.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@thinkingcat.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------