Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

"Joel M. Halpern" <> Sat, 28 May 2016 18:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88FD212B02E; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.722
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.722 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_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vCScEOJurxZx; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F69812B00F; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA9151C027D; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=1.tigertech; t=1464460506; bh=k11EImVpiTgRFDraRLx4x1EP7243sowRuQGd9LHJyyU=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fZdowNAxSSLklJ9SB5HAg2JPC/36sWzKpSWMrfiyChYvguNdy6q0pJRKLhfelepOj Z6sle3JPycCw4r5mPV9BWIn6B3NXbSWvDuUibtHkrXizAoCyDQeTExu+VmZjejLBbQ iyrzry9zqyOu9cPGv6mIuS4VTybZsYGGyWgwu8Rc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 657551C01E4; Sat, 28 May 2016 11:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Fernando Gont <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 14:34:46 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; 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: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <>
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: Sat, 28 May 2016 18:35:08 -0000

     Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to 
less-participating locations increases long term participation from 
those locales.  There are also indications from other data that it is 
not particularly effective.  Thus, while your view is a reasonable 
hypothesis, it will take time and measurements to confirm it.
     I do note that many of our regular participants found BA to be 
simply too much (by whatever measures they use) and chose not to come. 
That is an observed cost that also must be factored in.

     Also note that we did chose to conduct the experiment.  So I think 
your comparison is quite a ways off the mark.


On 5/28/16 2:28 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 05/28/2016 02:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Donald Eastlake <
>> <>> wrote:
>>     > the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy
>>     > for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented less/later.
>>     No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its
>>     meetings for a long time.
>> Maybe we disagree on what the term geographic diversity means? To me, a
>> policy that says "we schedule meetings on three continents because
>> that's where our participants are" makes it easier for people from
>> diverse locations to participate, and thus is a policy intended to
>> facilitate geographic diversity.
> What's curious about this approach is that folks don't argue or object
> it, whereas e.g. none in their right mind would argue something like "we
> mostly prefer 'straight' people because that's what most of our
> participants are".
> Similarly, some folks argue that that before the IETF has scheduled
> meetings in say, latinamerica, latinamerica should have a sensible
> number of people -- whereas none in their right mind would argue "there
> should be a sensible number of active LGBT participants before
> discussing the IETF 100 venue issue".
> It would seem to me that there are some groups where diversity is meant
> to be applied, but others to which different "principles" apply. -- but
> if all this is done in the name of diversity, one would expect
> consistency, regardless of the specify "minority" that is affected.
> e.g., I haven't seen an email flood regarding why latinamerica isn't
> included in the rotation, or a formal response from anyone regarding
> that. (Note: I'm not arguing in favor or against meeing in LATAM... just
> talking about consistency here).
> Thanks,