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

Dave Crocker <> Mon, 23 May 2016 13:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2639B12D8AA for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 06:14:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQzE_SrN-jZb for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 869F112D8A8 for <>; Mon, 23 May 2016 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u4NDE6Ss006616 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 May 2016 06:14:07 -0700
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Melinda Shore <>, Eliot Lear <>,
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 09:13:20 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 23 May 2016 07:36:17 -0700
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 13:47:46 -0000

On 5/22/2016 2:04 PM, Melinda Shore wrote:
> Allow me to suggest that avoiding disadvantaging people who do not
> actually participate might be somewhat lower priority than avoiding
> disadvantaging those who do.


The model which asserts that choosing meeting venues is a way to recruit 
participants has no objective basis -- and that's after 30 years of 
opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. It frankly serves to work against 
the basic goal of having most work done on mailing lists, by selling a 
cultural view that meetings are primary.

Anyone who wants to participate in the IETF already can.  All they need 
is an Internet connection.  It doesn't even have to be a good one, since 
IETF list mail only consumes extremely low bandwidth and is an 
asynchronous form of use.

F2F meetings permit /added/ efficiency for those who are /already/ 

Moving the venue is /not/ for permitting attendance by those who 
otherwise can't attend, but (is supposed to be) to share the pain among 
those who do attend.

The outreach goal cited for some venue choices is well-intentioned but 
unfortunately misguided and probably counter-productive to the IETF's 
main work.

On 5/23/2016 7:01 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> I only wish that was true. While we try to go back to venues that
> have worked well, they are often not available on the dates when we
> want to meet.

While that is sometimes the case, of course, it is not the primary 
reason we keep seeking new venues (independent of the occasional social 
outreach experiment.)

The primary reason we vary the cities so much is to try to get sponsors 
and hosts.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking