Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

Fernando Gont <> Fri, 27 May 2016 00:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E01C12D13F; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id f5hwkkvTAOSl; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1BFC12D0BD; Thu, 26 May 2016 17:11:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E869E805E1; Fri, 27 May 2016 02:11:45 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Margaret Cullen <>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 20:11:08 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
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: Fri, 27 May 2016 00:11:54 -0000

On 05/26/2016 02:44 PM, Margaret Cullen wrote:
> You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world,
> while people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons
> of safety or ethics would stay home and participate remotely.  While
> there might be some (as yet unquantified, see below) advantage to
> that approach, it would have the _hugely unfortunate effect_ that the
> most privileged people in the world (rich, white, U.S./European,
> straight men) might be the only ones who are willing/able to attend
> every meeting in person.  Given that our leadership selection process
> depends on in-person attendance, both as a way to select nomcom
> members and as a requirement for leadership positions, that would run
> counter to our efforts to make the IETF a more diverse organization
> across many lines.

Maybe what run counters making the IETF a more diverse organization is
the requirement to attend meetings in person in the first place?

> Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the
> meeting in Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular
> attendees, and this made it harder to get work done, IMO.

So this sounds like there's some form of diversity that is desirable,
and others that aren't (e.g., geographic diversity)? e.g., why don't you
see this "world tour" (which for a BA-resident wasn't actually a tour in
the first place) as something that goes in favor of diversity? Or is it
just that only some forms/expressions of diversity are desirable?

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492