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

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Sun, 22 May 2016 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <paul@nohats.ca>
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 C507012D0E2; Sun, 22 May 2016 08:57:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.526
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, 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 LMlHpi1yCQDS; Sun, 22 May 2016 08:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.nohats.ca (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:2a03:6000:1004:1::68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA7B012B038; Sun, 22 May 2016 08:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3rCRBy6p23z35Y; Sun, 22 May 2016 17:57:30 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mx.nohats.ca
Received: from mx.nohats.ca ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mx.nohats.ca [IPv6:::1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JAOYAvpiP-C7; Sun, 22 May 2016 17:57:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bofh.nohats.ca (206-248-139-105.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.139.105]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Sun, 22 May 2016 17:57:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4359C801ED2; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 bofh.nohats.ca 4359C801ED2
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bofh.nohats.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2903B406B6EE; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 11:57:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <CA+9kkMB5cSG01tgxA+==db1TmZwN0uY8tXtJ+Q3Rm0VUpHcUuA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605221149050.29560@bofh.nohats.ca>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.20.1605211237470.6270@bofh.nohats.ca> <CA+9kkMB5cSG01tgxA+==db1TmZwN0uY8tXtJ+Q3Rm0VUpHcUuA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LRH 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/crEAcZoZXxOkdm4iQuT2Slnmz1c>
Cc: venue-selection@ietf.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: Sun, 22 May 2016 15:57:36 -0000

On Sun, 22 May 2016, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I think the diversity principle is not "hold meetings in different places", which would put a premium on novelty, but on "hold meetings so that the disadvantages of
> travel are equally distributed".  It may well be that only a small number of places meet our bar for inclusiveness, and that we shuttle among them.  As long as that
> shuttling still spreads the disadvantages of travel equally, we meet the goal.

I strongly disagree. It is not about novelty at all. It is about
being local to more people who otherwise cannot attend. Look at our
last meeting, which was a first in South America. The number of South
American participants was very high, and full of first time attendees.

If the price for that is that some frequent attendees have to miss an
occasional meeting, then I think that is worth it and still complies
with our policies of trying to be as inclusive as possible.

Paul