IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net> Mon, 23 May 2016 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jdrake@juniper.net>
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 D954E12B02A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:45:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com
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 Xsm8RviK_v3G for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0101.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6536A1200A0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 07:45:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=junipernetworks.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-juniper-net; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=r+ZRyRPZ5idV8CGAsnYZJ9tIEgwz+fzi8+DKsl+vXKE=; b=DsgK2JD8GbRoKDlfXGZLaltZi2jzhsAkBBM0MB3vCdvV9fpQCpp+Lnt/u4IcS/nXbXglJJe5n5EOFnUuBzm/HzGL4ytemF3RzXkWZ8lVTKxZjthQDBFdAcohVy53PQSKHrP54+yqTlas4y/mmsLaPaTjTXqqssatypMAd7JKUHQ=
Received: from SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.130.155) by SN1PR0501MB1712.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.163.130.158) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.501.7; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:45:08 +0000
Received: from SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.130.155]) by SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.163.130.155]) with mapi id 15.01.0501.012; Mon, 23 May 2016 14:45:08 +0000
From: John E Drake <jdrake@juniper.net>
To: "dcrocker@simon.songbird.com" <dcrocker@simon.songbird.com>, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Thread-Index: AQHRsHEHgrjEN6rGMES5tB8FmVKmap/Dm8iAgAAJaICAABMygIAApuKAgABU0YCAABVoAIAAUB0AgAAnZQCAAAZCAIAAAICAgAFBHQCAABkl0A==
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:45:08 +0000
Message-ID: <SN1PR0501MB1709DCB5AD4E53B37DD8D305C74E0@SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <CA+9kkMCQBdZOebSo9WwEd14+Bgh64Tpd+8BfF+uzbDRSV-gFxw@mail.gmail.com> <88c09ff2-51d0-d419-1253-ddd8e6049397@cisco.com> <CA+9kkMBi3pR+N3E21j=gNAKNNndX8NvpnwEJcNAYpJGpx6A6mw@mail.gmail.com> <093f7f6f-4d4a-334e-e476-a0b562bd9fd7@cisco.com> <5741EEE6.2040302@gmail.com> <c4aeef86-5c0b-1858-3340-1d1cf4dffcc3@cisco.com> <5741F491.7080908@gmail.com> <be769a9d-92d4-8f6a-12e7-8f68c74acf70@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <be769a9d-92d4-8f6a-12e7-8f68c74acf70@dcrocker.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;simon.songbird.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: ad00087d-deea-4893-5fea-08d38318d661
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1PR0501MB1712; 5:4ld8gdwDF0pTOiy2sYpSJD/WE/s4mnkSVljRADgbE0Ma4ORAz/qwWdaKDdIGLYjF6VlG0iSQ2FTPekr+Mymi2BqL2geEsf5aQ2eNomMGvj/cuCJoqixOPwqLyvnByPlRL/GpwhQYwFtU5T40cqf9gQ==; 24:sO09aJUs1er9j6EtAmN7mc9dw1DgXT0Y6hy9NU2GbA9dBL7l6MBJuNpDVDPxCYrFohiVAS4AHZ0JL5EYFsbFi+WXZ1dw2jiMikcXDVhodKA=; 7:+urrtA1LSEputdL4klutK30ZsASiP+coGDrJo+tq9vKRiAwnMrW0lp8raryU5fZhBT6DGXSglfssN2ZkCz6nphOP9bStnNH2rOUraX0cVHeJHwHKAPk4dqIpCUzUvfTQPKlxOavvZjr6XTyHYhp+3Wl7E3TVmtVNAtQqIKuh2uaCjfR5G0XZlmd9d2eO6MBl
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1712;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <SN1PR0501MB1712AEBB22EA3DC659E7551DC74E0@SN1PR0501MB1712.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1712; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1712;
x-forefront-prvs: 0951AB0A30
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(377454003)(13464003)(24454002)(66066001)(9686002)(92566002)(5002640100001)(50986999)(122556002)(8676002)(586003)(106116001)(5003600100002)(81166006)(86362001)(11100500001)(33656002)(1220700001)(3280700002)(2906002)(2501003)(2950100001)(2900100001)(5004730100002)(19580405001)(19580395003)(54356999)(76176999)(77096005)(8936002)(74316001)(5001770100001)(5008740100001)(107886002)(189998001)(93886004)(102836003)(3660700001)(6116002)(3846002)(87936001)(10400500002)(76576001)(99286002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1PR0501MB1712; H:SN1PR0501MB1709.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 May 2016 14:45:08.7593 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1PR0501MB1712
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/ttHWVslwVAmTTQ2h7FH5fOWwdM0>
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:45:12 -0000

I had characterized the expedition to BA as an example of getting on the bus to Abilene.

Yours Irrespectively,

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 9:13 AM
> To: Melinda Shore; Eliot Lear; ietf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request
> for input
> 
> 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.
> 
> +10
> 
> 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/ participating.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> d/
> --
> 
>    Dave Crocker
>    Brandenburg InternetWorking
>    bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email