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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

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.

Eliot