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

Eliot Lear <> Sun, 22 May 2016 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5966F12D166 for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.948
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.948 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_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jd67DekRFt7U for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8527812D12B for <>; Sun, 22 May 2016 11:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3889; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1463940138; x=1465149738; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=TMwN8mhimlKwb2iW7C4n26Q2LLkSW++XCFJ81czsT7o=; b=PLBo4LXv+jqAVBgr6OqGTrwKhOasVacTi411pe4CeY13PfRy4Uj6LBjw LXl6knIZ6+cNY2OoYUkjwyDhqgmBrEMAmzYM3uYJb0PPr1RGfU8weERtr KoBijgNQKb44lYLM0aw940K/+Bdr9tNgx95AUqwFv3WjszCf4EIcw8w10 I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 481
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,351,1459814400"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="677304406"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 May 2016 18:02:16 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u4MI2Fbe015864; Sun, 22 May 2016 18:02:15 GMT
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Melinda Shore <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Eliot Lear <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 20:02:14 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="03JSK9T73bnguupCDwTivwD0Mf9NjT6Q3"
Archived-At: <>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 18:02:20 -0000

Hang on a moment, Melinda:

On 5/22/16 7:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> On 5/22/16 7:18 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to
>> new members because of their governments' laws.  They need to be
>> considered in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have
>> not been, and often aren't.
> You know, I've been arguing for a long time that we would
> benefit a lot from making the organization less dependent on
> meetings, and the feedback I've gotten from you and others
> taking the position that it's okay to meet in locations
> like Singapore is that no, we really need face-to-face discussions
> and hallway conversations.  

I didn't actually make that argument.  I do agree that more use of
online mechanisms is better.  But this discussion isn't about that. 
This discussion is about how we choose venues when we're going to have f2fs.

> Early in this discussion everybody
> agreed that yes, our top priority is getting work done, but
> here you are suggesting that maybe getting work done can take
> a backseat to making sure that people who are not currently
> involved and not doing any IETF work can attend.  Then there's
> the notion that we do our work on mailing list being chucked
> aside to be replaced by the flat statement that if someone
> cannot attend a meeting we are foreclosing participation by
> them (with the implied suggestion that the requirements of
> people who are not yet involved trump the requirements of
> some long-time participants).

Sorry- but there is no doubt that f2f meetings are high bandwidth
compared to any electronic form of communication.  And I'm saying that
if we're going to have them we have a choice of who we disadvantage, for
surely we will disadvantage someone.  This discussion is about how that
choice is made.