Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]

<chopps@chopps.org> Tue, 12 April 2016 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 11C6A12E06F for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:01:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 3YXqsin5rreH for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 897B612E0BC for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (24-247-68-31.dhcp.trcy.mi.charter.com [24.247.68.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 081CB60D09; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:01:17 +0000 (UTC)
References: <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com> <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org> <87twj7eon7.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <20160412110839.GA20488@gsp.org> <8760vn82f2.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <570D2A34.1030700@gmail.com>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 24.5.1
From: <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remote only meetings? [Re: Concerns about Singapore]
In-reply-to: <570D2A34.1030700@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 14:01:16 -0400
Message-ID: <87bn5ehfkj.fsf@tops.chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/m2FLuJtVAHdA-Fk3H2Yp338mR0Y>
Cc: 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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 18:01:21 -0000

Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> writes:

> On 4/12/16 3:57 AM, chopps@chopps.org wrote:
>> Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> writes:
>>> Because it works exclusively for the elite, privileged few.  (And no
>>> doubt: it works quite well.)  But it's the antithesis of inclusion
>>> and diversity -- and I think those qualities are increasingly necessary.
>>
>> But this is not how the IETF operates.
>
> Actually, it's very much how the IETF operates in practice,
> particularly with meeting participation becoming increasingly
> expensive and with increased participation from "standards
> professionals."  If you've been to meetings you'll have
> noticed some chairs taking votes in meetings (rather than
> relying on consensus processes) and saying that they'll
> ratify or confirm that decision on the mailing list (if
> they remember - sometimes they don't).

I know for a fact it is not how I and my co-chair run the IS-IS WG. I
can't speak to whether other WGs are being run incorrectly. It's the
responsibility of the participants and the ADs to make sure the
chairs are not violating our own standards process though.

Thanks,
Chris.