RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse

"Adrian Farrel" <> Thu, 07 April 2016 04:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0F912D137 for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h5FFBV73q5Zl for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AF1712D123 for <>; Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u374WOVx020986; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:32:24 +0100
Received: from 950129200 ( [] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u374WLRX020944 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:32:23 +0100
From: "Adrian Farrel" <>
To: <>
References: <09ff01d1905c$f15d4e70$d417eb50$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Subject: RE: "We did not know" is not a good excuse
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 05:32:17 +0100
Message-ID: <0a5801d19086$79f40e30$6ddc2a90$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGMmqG5z30WLKo9QlhbwnFG9R5TNAJCqcjan/XAz9A=
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-
X-TM-AS-Result: No--14.877-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--14.877-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: nVQUmLJJeyYn2WEbWzq9rfHkpkyUphL9TJDl9FKHbrmHwGEm+CpYGcvS OFlVWsCbiQB26/9yMlW33SGYV5ytzsfgk3gaw8COJlIRBurDUWMhXHiVbGfuYznKpbGL4ChVqA7 +29SXlN6aKL/c2Xr4HsOkNyJjwMMRJDsLtEDPxjkV271HorxLNJb07sTmkdICmyiLZetSf8nJ4y 0wP1A6AMaUO+wtQNbajoczmuoPCq24GuLs8K0RsNq33n95UPoMbiLm3GKRSRL7Ana5VBNuxstUZ hqpwE9N
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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 04:32:35 -0000


> > How do we move on so:
> ...
> > - this problem does not recur
> What you probably /do/ mean is that further venue selections avoid
> places that effectively serve to exclude participation by various
> constituencies. 

What I mean, and I have no reason to doubt the good intentions and diligence of
the IAOC and Meetings Committee, is that we need to avoid situations where:

- the IAOC is unaware of the strength of feeling in the community on a selection
- the IAOC is unaware of travel issues for a particular venue
- the community is surprised by the choice of venue
- the venue, host, sponsor, IAOC, IETF, are embarrassed by the reaction to a
venue announcement

It may be true that the community could provide a list of vetoed and approved
locations for the Meetings Committee to work with. That is a possible approach.
Another approach might be for the Meetings Committee to suggest some venues and
see what the community feels (this has happened before with a poll on some
venues that Ray sent to the community).

But I want to spec the problem, not engineer a solution. I trust the IAOC to
develop a solution to the problem that works with the other issues they have to
handle. And I trust them to bring the solution forward soon.