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

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Melinda, could you be explicit about this?   Do you mean that you believe
that this current discussion we are having is a discussion about diversity,
and that it has been derailed?   Or do you mean that we ought to have that
discussion, and that you are concerned based on how this discussion has
gone that that discussion would be derailed?

The original topic of this thread was whether the IAOC's proposed path
forward of separating the question of principle, which they agree is a
valid question, from the question of what to do about IETF 100, for which
it would be most practical to not make a change.   The specific question
that was asked is, "is there anybody who believes that we could not have a
successful meeting in Singapore?"

There are three obvious ways to respond to this.   The first is to say
"no."   The second is to say "yes," and say what that reason would be.
The third is to say "that is not the right question," and say why.

It appears that you and Ted do not believe that that is the right question.
  I think it is plain why you think that it is not the right question.
However, by changing the topic, you are asserting that your belief about
what the right question is is more important than either the IAOC's beliefs
or the beliefs of other IETFers who believe that it was a reasonable
question.   You may be right.   I am certainly not convinced that you are
wrong.   But I think it would be helpful to say so directly, and say why.
Maybe you already have, and I didn't hear you, in which case I apologize
for being obtuse.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 5/25/16 11:02 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>> The question was not WHO to have at meetings.  (Although, WHERE often
>> leads to WHO).
>>
>
> At some point we really need to have a discussion of diversity and
> inclusion that isn't sidetracked.  I'm hopeful that people who are
> not interested in that will have the discipline not to try to
> derail the discussion.
>
> Melinda
>
>