Re: my summary of discussion regarding IETF #100

Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com> Wed, 01 June 2016 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <dean.willis@softarmor.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 98F1212D123 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=softarmor.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 qUnAK8BT7NNX for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x233.google.com (mail-oi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::233]) (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 E626A12D583 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id w184so6189351oiw.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=softarmor.com; s=google; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=8Qd9Fy1/MxVa9ZKNylIXWobYfyu0aDLOHT8RUta9eLk=; b=CYlhIEcMmd1WCMuJrORc7D9oQb5nYK5t3SUdguhHpAh9W86A9cqXQZ3LipbRjifxbx Tfp7MjM5C+4/srh9gfYsCUpNeB4crRsiyC+xkfLuyvntJB4wBWR2i5xameHxp/sLuQic 1i9GTVlGwtOF/jNiPKY1ZminPwTywEwWvdRm8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=8Qd9Fy1/MxVa9ZKNylIXWobYfyu0aDLOHT8RUta9eLk=; b=RtzIv0Ald69wj8su4kaUBrrdnQhiWhdi5/rDJrBuQpjXYUtyHznaR8dUOPx5GyudXk dQoZqzTD9LiBQQaGr51sYMfMgrEU1/2Xc/oK71c8y+BcYRYhDdVvTUZTtumxKLpyg4f0 /4/+m5IK7pO6yBgt1CiwJjaS0XACkFIk1IPuuzRq86X01JNvX6Z7OJkicD8bFV8tx4mT SclnAALDJZbUxHwe2PzGJRAs4r0cozjGZex2511BYKcmR946PfQrrSOXL2l6h2Eci2um EcOjggUF7F//hJbF7aJtDfvQx6xKP6XBPaK411VF+yQtUOvDhOkNycBdxNgfABisF1G/ ngsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLJwepZQL+9SJmft4lchCRE5ZoJswxL2zFmNYlhUAJ7u/kwmlaimjG74QfFaAPERA==
X-Received: by 10.202.90.212 with SMTP id o203mr22107947oib.117.1464745211278; Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.124] ([104.50.220.72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 97sm1388393ote.39.2016.05.31.18.40.09 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 31 May 2016 18:40:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: my summary of discussion regarding IETF #100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4C799841-244A-4A7B-B60F-D46891586B3F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha256
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 2.6b2
From: Dean Willis <dean.willis@softarmor.com>
In-Reply-To: <AB5E1CF9-52C7-46E1-A430-C0E65793728E@piuha.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 20:39:47 -0500
Message-Id: <642F95F1-96E8-4ADE-8251-89ADBDC22430@softarmor.com>
References: <AB5E1CF9-52C7-46E1-A430-C0E65793728E@piuha.net>
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ls9-eEVE0x3JonYcP0MyhfvUqNA>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org Discussion" <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: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 01:40:13 -0000

> On May 28, 2016, at 12:49, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>; wrote:
> 
> 
> Several people have pointed out that it is very important that the IETF treats everyone's issues the same. I'd point out though that not everyone reacts in the same fashion, e.g., we need to be aware of people who are or have been silent about their issues, attempt to identify such issues, and consider those as well, fairly, *while* still needing to find a reasonable set of real-world venues.
> 

<cowboy hat on>

No, we don’t. If they aren’t the sort of issues that prevent real work from getting done in the IETF, we do NOT need to be identifying or considering them.

This is not a social club. It is not a debating forum. It is not a junket-factory for family-friendly excursions. It is work, and work is hard and requires sacrifice.

I understand that it is trendy for everyone to need safe-spaces, group hugs, and lemon-scented-napkins before takeoff these days, but this is getting ridiculous.

Being able to get through customs at a destination, being able to afford that destination, and being safe once one gets there are critical issues. Adequate meeting, hospitality, and bandwidth accommodations are critical issues.

Most of the rest of this debate needs to be taken somewhere else. Sure, we can each have personal concerns about how to get more of our clique-du-jour into the process, but that, in general, is something the IETF as a whole needs to avoid wasting time on.

So stop being a silly wanker, kick some ass, and call an end to playtime. Everybody back to work!

<cowboy hat off>

—
Dean