Re: actions related to improving IETF meeting selections

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

This is a great idea, but would require a lot of regular IETFers to sign on
and get support for going to those meetings.

On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >Thanks so much for your efforts on both Singapore meeting and improving
> future IETF meeting selections. You have done an excellent work on
> respecting various opinions and making a >necessary compromise.
>
> +1
>
>
>
> >Regarding to diversity among future IETF meeting selections, there are
> actually multiple meanings of diversity. But in my opinion, the most
> important task for IETF organizer should be to >get and keep high quality
> and consistent contributors. Arising the awareness of IETF in wider areas,
> attracting more diversity people (particularly, if these people would not
> join the follow->up IETF meetings) are much less important than the
> convenience for our majority consistent participants. Therefore, the most
> important diversity should be geography diversity among the >current
> majority consistent participants. Consequently, I strongly support 1+1+1
> policy. One potential option is that we may have a set of side/secondary
> IETF meetings apart from the >three main IETF meetings per years. They
> could be hold out of main areas to serve the other diversity purposes.
>
> Sheng, I find the idea of "secondary or side" meetings very intriguing.
> I think this may be a path for regions who do not have a large set of
> participants (yet).   I would like to see this idea elaborated upon.   What
> are your thoughts?
>
> Nalini
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ietf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of IETF Chair
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:58 PM
> >To: IETF Announcement List
> >Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail] Discussion
> >Subject: actions related to improving IETF meeting selections
>
> >
> >
> >The discussion about the Singapore meeting has been difficult for us. The
> IETF
> >needs a meeting that we are generally happy with. Various past mistakes
> and
> >new learnings aside, we are now in a situation where no decision in this
> space
> >will be perfect. We knew that no matter what choice is made, there will be
> >groups of people who feel they are unfairly impacted.
> >
> >But perhaps the most important things are that, long-term, the community
> >gets to carefully weigh what they expect from meeting locations, that we
> all
> >learn from more about the various challenges discussed, we are an open
> >organisation for everybody including minorities, and that we improve our
> >processes going forward. It is also crucial that the IETF remains an
> >organisation that can do its technical work, and be open to all of our
> global
> >participants in a fair manner. And obviously be capable of arranging our
> >operations in the real world, in areas that our participants come from.
> >
> >What follows is what we are proposing as additional onward work to address
> >the issues highlighted in this discussion:
> >
> >o  The IAOC as well as members of the community have asked me to
> >charter a working group to continue the discussion of the detailed meeting
> >criteria document (draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process). All
> >criteria are on the table for discussion. The working group proposal is
> being
> >reviewed by the IESG, and will be out for community review shortly. A WG
> >meeting in Berlin is planned.
> >
> >o  Develop a BCP that defines the community-backed, official policy for
> the
> >overall strategy of geographic meeting distribution (our current strategy
> is
> >referred to as 1-1-1*). An initial draft for this is in the works.
> >
> >o  Arrange a special session in Berlin to discuss the role of human
> rights,
> >visas, and other aspects of international meeting arrangements. We have
> >begun to work to find outside experts in this space who can join a
> >conversation. (If you have suggestions, let us know.)
> >
> >o  Continue the new practice of informing the community of potential
> >future meeting destinations, and collecting “crowd-sourced” input on their
> >suitability.
> >
> >o  Commit to a proper, informed process to identify issues that any
> >subgroup (including but not only the LGBTQ community) has with our site
> >selections.
> >
> >o  Commit to returning to the 1-1-1* meeting model — or what the
> >eventual BCP policy is -- for Asia for the remainder of the decade. For
> the last
> >decade, we’ve only met there 4 times.
> >
> >o  Commit to holding all other currently planned meetings as they are, and
> >focusing on making the most appropriate decisions about future meetings,
> as
> >informed by community input.
> >
> >o  While we do not believe that we should respond to the current
> >discussions merely with a suggestion of conducting our meeting virtually,
> it is
> >a clear direction that IETF and other organisations will be using more
> virtual
> >collaboration tools in the future. The IESG has discussed taking initial
> steps
> >with regards to bigger virtual meetings. Experiences from this could drive
> >further efforts.
> >
> >Jari Arkko, IETF Chair
>
>
>