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

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Fri, 27 May 2016 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@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 EF9AB12D6EE; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:18:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 ns-ixktnHjK7; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22e.google.com (mail-oi0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22e]) (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 0F00412D6EB; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:18:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j1so181170157oih.3; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:18:15 -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=aFE9lpplwmu62vFlEBMoxKn0qVClZGQ2iOhKHak+7hU=; b=CKVGzCa4oGAeVyh2G0tXLWS3jQ7myYaiBMOXxbyZtDG6rqTO8Qit0PVOWa0sn76sk8 cjSEno7NpT53j6030OTgTUSqXIbfGATaaAgxSeR7Kd+S75mN7paGF+jVHZnPpwE1QjG3 k5wNQpxd7kZioMpcPqV3Ott5uDgr7DZqK5KFQcUKgLdbHNzAqMKiQbxXFlbmZezYaBNx D6PHp1oszCnrK64CCztL1RDYC8jdZrKt+3GkjUBkzCZjL+s9kV8HtV2qT6eZhZuXyD31 rrDfO2reN9Zyvy/ix8KjMd+FaKDkuODW/wbkCgraSo5TPhoy+RmPXl/EA3yerSc3y77h dx8Q==
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=aFE9lpplwmu62vFlEBMoxKn0qVClZGQ2iOhKHak+7hU=; b=g6he6eyHZYJCovBgZZE6+B0KPRRNZJ1Aj1FlyMtlKrM7hJkPvmQTxzRn8Ol1kGP2uT mf/nQCzRVq8Nzf4el21DIjzBECpxPUFnwairuuQlbUwK5/Kj+f1H6V7HTUH6Ml0dEnu2 FarZQc5jkQ+epiKld7vLljBB4aeb0ecytjR7nYswSKVbUW9ABsLKU3rsmyy8u2egBNy6 y/pqtQE9SeE/EGXlP2Cn5KLyw8vwiEAFD+OBFkzfCJHj0qrnIVQ5XIfNyClDP27iveOt Vb17lxi1NcmrPXERYcgr7m7Ve/2G4ht1vX2Wez1xCUxPoQjDk8tpaX7uOdio7oztmC0O 6vdw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKAt/CEX0W2LtVEWn85+u7oFILlyoaGpiY/Ql6y5evYjMpHtmozpLiGnV6FK55jXyo//klDeK3tJ0Zzsg==
X-Received: by 10.202.85.73 with SMTP id j70mr10293586oib.114.1464365894315; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:18:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.157.22.249 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 09:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 12:17:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAF4+nEG3zt1ykuVTbi4_3nAAeCUiikXKR5HLj+8KG8U7yxo=NA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/hevfQ9gwUn2IR3XDo4ymVcUqwB8>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker \(fred\)" <fred@cisco.com>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <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: Fri, 27 May 2016 16:18:17 -0000

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>; wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>;
> wrote:
>>
>> Or is it just that only some forms/expressions of diversity are desirable?
>
>
> That's a fascinating question. All else being equal you might imagine that
> any group of people would give the earliest/most thought to the forms of
> diversity that are the most represented in that group, simply because it is
> more obvious to them. Thus, the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy
> for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented less/later.
> ...

No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its
meetings for a long time.

The policy was very simply to hold meetings to roughly equalize the
travel burden on the people who were actually attending the meetings.
It had nothing to do with diversity. Asia was added to the rotation,
first as one out of 5 (2-2-1) and then as one out of 3 (1-1-1) after
Asia attendance actually increased, NOT due to any sort of diversity
policy or marketing effort. I think that was a good policy, one
oriented to getting work done. Buenos Aires was a stark exception to
this policy.

Thanks,
Donald
===============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com