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

Ted Lemon <> Wed, 25 May 2016 19:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABCF12DC38 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wmwzw9v38jKZ for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448C112DC31 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id sh2so18186331lbb.1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GrTyHtLx+q4ceK8GZiMb7sQWSLwfaSCB75m/uyZmx8o=; b=ZMQcoszP8FPs5ZZfAPV0OGcA61PCvaiHG3edhk3+Ape6jQs4fQg5E8zFg7RiuEzf2+ PVoIeTMKgmLUgRzK+IOUZelk1zWqW2bM0C85EexjG8wdmQWUaYSpONvofhYa89n6pR0M pTv846b7viRbWpBYTgUU+m3yEZGwrmmabvm4W5ZKED/ugBstVJjBZ8CSYr3LCKqQnaMV pzs8WSnErFX6UD4upDGN056kllByk7/LBa6IWArV3hkPoBPcZR16LSQwhFfIDlviTRTY Qp7q7N9P5ayacBAtXcktdbAR3A6K77PqJzZU7Wg9iu63CqIkWWsBj2f4sQa2nfsMUqOL veOQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GrTyHtLx+q4ceK8GZiMb7sQWSLwfaSCB75m/uyZmx8o=; b=XdQXEmRn7byCwhyjdwXvbI8Z2VzdEV77tWrousWfLlgoR5OefdXDyIrURVKYpD6ebx EQw9p24AUyImilZUD+TJD7boPjbKPK1HXTi7fcE0DWPB95efuHqi4wQODRuKTz8u0FnN U5YkgRfLoHaE/Fb6L1CimAhmr+lglcuHaK1nn8LRsGy866FBd/zWB2wg4K8Dbez/Ozqy 2M9MjiHr4CSRWJYf2bOAd5Ip0ykkymHBp8DZ4K7cOZfD7LGD4NfoIGXXxgxtlCgUkbGg 993h63dcTwwmGSSczE5N/LFfb8zWOcQ40HPQqMuUViY06xMzGIzPNFT0Q6Ju5Jcpu0wA CqZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKitEeOXau6u2ozbn/FkweS6zup6TsTLrAo8kloaQLoET+dvCksiNT6m9XfpXWtO26886oM8arpqZc8Cw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f5mr1747626lbb.58.1464205197420; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 12:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <> <>
From: Ted Lemon <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:39:17 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Melinda Shore <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113606dcabbe6a0533afd65d"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:40:38 -0000

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 <>

> On 5/25/16 11:02 AM, 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