Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 16:01 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
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 CDBB512D0F3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 09:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KW6eI4VAUEqq for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 09:01:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E6E212B00C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4OG1g6p030429 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 24 May 2016 11:01:44 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
Subject: Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
To: Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@thinkingcat.com>
References: <58598992-449C-4E2B-867D-12D04236AB3A@thinkingcat.com> <D7078B9A-AF4B-4D40-A8D7-CD7C42DE3218@cooperw.in> <D95B9AE8-5B5A-4882-A371-3C5825179FC8@thinkingcat.com> <cbbc3530-fe39-a9f3-084a-0458c9961f5b@nostrum.com> <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <ff65ada9-8285-101a-9b0c-f9dc26eb4cdb@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:01:42 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1A202503-3128-4726-8E35-9AB76028D765@thinkingcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/opQU1Y8wECT5l0TT7dntkyiidSA>
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 24 May 2016 16:01:49 -0000

On 5/24/16 10:38, Leslie Daigle wrote:
>
> Thanks, a cogent summary, though I think it underplays a couple of key 
> points:
>
> 1/ the cost of backing out of Singapore at this date (this is the 
> picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for 
> public consumption)

Certainly, and I look forward to this information being shared with the 
community. As it appears to be the key practical countervailing 
argument, I would have hoped to have seen it in the initial message from 
the IAOC on the topic.

> 2/ whether a broader range of people than have failed to unsubscribe 
> from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a 
> few different conversations that are going on in the background and 
> they are not all supportive of canceling). 

I'm sure there are. Be careful when using majority opinion to make 
decisions that affect minority populations. Tyranny of the majority 
remains the Achilles heel of democracies (and this is writ large in 
consensus building exercises).

/a