Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 26 May 2016 18:24 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.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 7F4BA12D7FC; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] 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 ZS8U4U4wa9X9; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEE9412B004; Thu, 26 May 2016 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=JcK-HP8200.jck.com) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1b5zxU-000DIw-C0; Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:36 -0400
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:31 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com, Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@me.com>
Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
Message-ID: <6E4D630701D00A8E1F298C51@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <1173860927.991021.1464278827696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <027501d1b724$632c2c40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1BA2C633-3B80-462D-A7F7-D948B159E23F@thinkingcat.com> <CAB75xn60i_ycKtriKMG_+GCYW6faoOV=z+oOTO5rbDvfJ3VxeA@mail.gmail.com> <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF26115F08@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net > <728699277.932892.1464274057098.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605260754450.6799@rabdullah.local> <1173860927.991021.1464278827696.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XDW9lpwZXEv9RCe4DvoYUndOiz8>
Cc: mtgvenue@ietf.org, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>, "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Thu, 26 May 2016 18:24:42 -0000
--On Thursday, May 26, 2016 16:07 +0000 nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com wrote: >... > I think now there needs to be some policy based on > reasonableness. This needs to be a part of the venue > discussion. Everyone has to decide for themselves what level > of risk they are willing to assume. I suspect for some people > they will tolerate no risk. For most people, a risk of less > than 1% or 5% ( or .00001% which is what I suspect it is for > Singapore) is probably good. > > Note, that we pass drafts based on ROUGH consensus not ACTUAL > consensus. As in any situation, 100% agreement or consensus > is almost impossible to achieve. Without commenting in this note about what I think we should do about Singapore, I think arguments based on rough consensus in this sort of situation are very dangerous and not appropriate. A rough consensus argument says that, if only a few people are even potentially affected and the odds of them experiencing a direct and serious impact are quite low, it is ok to just go ahead with the meeting. I don't have any way to know, but I assume that the number of people who are GLBT and who would travel with families to Singapore is not huge. Narrow that further to those whose families/ traveling companions would include children and the number becomes smaller. Narrow it even more to the entirely unpredictable number whose situations would require them and their relationships to confront local authorities and practices (such as needing to deal with a hospital) and I hope the number would go to zero, not because of any special properties of that group but because I assume we manage to get through most IETF meetings without anyone, or families traveling with them, needing to deal with checking into a hospital. If our decision-making has to turn on counting the number of people who are likely, or, even worse, certainly, directly, and obviously affected as distinguished from worrying about the risks, the answer is going to be "go to Singapore and let them cope". I do not believe that answer is acceptable but that conviction has nothing to do with a consensus measurement of those who are or might directly affected. Perhaps an observation about a different situation (although one that has come up on the list in a different form) might help explain this to those who seem to be being a little dismissive of the issues and risks. For historical reasons as well as a few nasty personal experiences in the past, I get anxious when a visa application asks for "religion". I've been known to leave that item blank and then worry about it on some occasions and to fill it in and worry about it on others, but I generally prefer to avoid places that ask, especially when they have laws and/or strongly established customs that favor one set of beliefs or practices over another. Does that mean I won't go to those places? Not necessarily. However, the problem occurs the moment I'm asked and involves my having to balance principles and risks from that moment (potentially including altering my behavior if I do go). That particular balancing situation is something that I believe that I should not be required to do. I don't believe an organization that wants my participation should force me into doing so. If it decides to do so, no amount of "consensus" about what I should feel or how I should behave makes any difference at all although I may observe that, if people feel a need for that particular discussion, or believe it should influence my decisions, it tells me (and others) a lot about the organization itself, things that are not at all favorable. john
- Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 IAOC Chair
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 George Michaelson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Margaret Cullen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jakob Heitz
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Ted Hardie
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Benson Schliesser
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [E] Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singa… Gross, Scott W
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Xiaohong Deng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mark Nottingham
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jose Saldana
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ole Troan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… otroan
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Leslie Daigle
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dhruv Dhody
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Michael Richardson
- RE: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Hutton, Andrew
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Harish Pillay
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 tom p.
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ted Lemon
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Barry Raveendran Greene
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jeffrey (Zhaohui) Zhang
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Ole Jacobsen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… nalini.elkins
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Lawrence Conroy
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Hardie
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Melinda Shore
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Jeffrey Haas
- Re: [Mtgvenue] Background on Singapore go/no go f… John C Klensin
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Niels ten Oever
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Carlos Martinez
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tony Rutkowski
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Keith Moore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel Snyder
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joe Abley
- Re: IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: R… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Aaron Morgan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Derek Jett
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Why we meet (was Re: [Recentattendees] Background… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Bert Wijnen (IETF)
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lloyd Wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Thompson, Jeff
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… PEDRO ANDRES ARANDA GUTIERREZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Crocker
- Re: Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100 Marc Blanchet
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Leslie Daigle
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Donald Eastlake
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Margaret Cullen
- Success metrics Re: [Recentattendees] Background … Bill Mills
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… kathleen.moriarty.ietf
- Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recentatten… Melinda Shore
- RE: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Christer Holmberg
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Jamie Baxter
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dave Hood
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Stephen Strowes
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Robert O'Callahan
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Masataka Ohta
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Value of meeting attendance (was Re: [Recenta… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Fernando Gont
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Marie-Jose Montpetit
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… lloyd.wood
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John Levine
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… James Seng
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Rich Kulawiec
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Dan Harkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mani, Mehdi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Alexander Nevalennyy
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Mary B
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Yoav Nir
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Michael StJohns
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… David Morris
- RE: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Randal Atkinson
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Tim Chown
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Naeem Khademi
- Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/… Brian Ford (brford)