Re: management granularity (Re: Meeting "lounges" at IETF meetings)

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 06 August 2012 02:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 CB98221F8532 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:02:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TIZJL8caLbyh for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B6421F853F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7621qgG008810; Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:01:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1344218518; bh=S7AbIV62pnlLtUG5hcTBfHn/MEsFR2U+CWIgPDCaNis=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=VFBhlUu+xogJ9KZPvZ6xjM2S4/pdLMrOWhKVTv73lUAOzDhLWHcnAxitOysisjOdr 3V9SDn+s+ytNG0uWtN05pS8IqHpvPqquHiINJUzVqYRjfdVMo/0Fo2mfycxa6lbDoM /FMiXd+PVdSVK8vlB4fyx4nyOlNtz/e9huZE5uFs=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1344218518; i=@resistor.net; bh=S7AbIV62pnlLtUG5hcTBfHn/MEsFR2U+CWIgPDCaNis=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cUW2psrAQye/s38lMzaAMLJRhJI5aqf4F/+lmyd67rOcytw+7qHuneGa1YrORaDd6 7DLMHRf29buInP5QYOpANjI3pLiq6gKsmU4X8Mr3B+TGBGIv/nmIhym0d3YrP2/LOH J3cHutpCKgw7VmuL5YTKqqW6aM76JozSQ0LCZShg=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20120805165716.07820120@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:54:49 -0700
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
Subject: Re: management granularity (Re: Meeting "lounges" at IETF meetings)
In-Reply-To: <E4DA6495-E02F-4A47-9AA2-E47F260CF3C5@mnot.net>
References: <31BCE4DE825B3F4D9E452EFBBD3F1EF280CE839F@PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com> <501EC24B.4080709@bbiw.net> <E4DA6495-E02F-4A47-9AA2-E47F260CF3C5@mnot.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc: ietf list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 02:02:02 -0000

Hi Mark,
At 12:26 05-08-2012, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>I live in Melbourne, and thus must travel for more than 24 hours 
>each way to just about every IETF meeting there is (the "asian" 
>meetings are at best 16 hours away, but often more due to routing). 
>Sometimes, much more.

And yet I don't see you complaining about that. :-)  The good news is 
that the IAOC decided to have a meeting in the Southern 
Hemisphere.  The bad news is that it may not be in Melbourne.

>You say "public relations", I say it's to encourage participation 
>from a wider range of people, so this doesn't become a 
>self-selecting set of blowhards*. This is a primary condition for an 
>organisation that aspires to set standards, not just a "marketing campaign".

Yes.

>Again, choosing three or so locations ignores large parts of not 
>only the developing world (e.g., Africa, India), but also 
>substantial portions of the developed world with a reasonable track 
>record of participation (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, Brazil).

There were 10 participants from Australia and 4 participants from New 
Zealand at the last IETF meeting.  There was interest to have the 
IETF in New Zealand.  I guess that it was considered as difficult to 
convince the cookie-eating mob that it was a good location.

>As much as I fear unleashing a mob of cookie-eating, 
>hotel-complaining, detail-fixated, t-shirt wearing, 
>difference-from-America-fearing, beard-wielding, 
>restaurant-bill-splitting nerd-ninjas on my adopted country, I think 
>there are very good selfish *and* unselfish

:-)

>  reasons for the IETF returning to Australia, or appearing nearby. 
> And going to Brazil or thereabouts, and India, and (eventually) 
> Africa. Doesn't have to be every year, but once a decade+ is not often enough.

The IETF will likely go to Latin America first.  My guess is that it 
might eventually go to India.  If it ever goes to Africa it will be 
more of a political statement than anything else.

Regards,
-sm