Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

["Leslie Daigle" <[e-mail]>]

Stephen,

Apologies for taking so long to respond — quiet minutes in front of a 
computer keyboard have been distressingly scarce this week.

In-line:

On 12 Apr 2017, at 20:00, Stephen Farrell wrote:

> Hi Leslie,
>
> Thanks for the update. One query...
>
> On 13/04/17 00:39, IAOC Chair wrote:
>> The general comments on meeting in the US played along the same lines
>> as has been shared on the IETF discussion list:  people are variously
>> for moving all meetings out of the US, or adamantly against, or
>> somewhere in between, each position supported by good reasons.
>
> I have seen mail to the list that argued for not meeting in the US
> within our current planing horizon. Some of that was adamant. (For
> clarity: I'd agree with the position that we ought not risk meeting
> in the US for a few years, incl. that we ought, if possible, move
> ietf-102 on the basis that the we don't have a predictable situation
> with the US at the moment and that we ought not plan to meet in any
> place that's currently that unpredictable.)
>
> I do not recall the opposite on the list, i.e. someone adamantly
> arguing that we ought continue to meet in the US. There were some
> mails that I'd say maybe weakly argued for continued US meetings
> in the relevant timeframe. But nothing approaching adamant.
>
> Is that my bias in reading the list traffic or did I miss some mail,
> or is it possible that the (public) list traffic and (relatively
> private) survey responses are less similar that your mail implies?

I think subsequent traffic has exposed more of the contrary thinking, 
and I don’t want to belabour it here.

To the specific question of “where has this been said”,  I’m 
referring to the messages on the IETF discussion list, as well as 
messages sent to the venue-selection mail drop address.  (That’s not a 
discussion list, but the archive is public, in the usual IETF site 
sources).

While we didn’t intend the request for input on specific cities (i.e., 
messages to venue-selection) to supersede the targeted questionnaire 
about travel experiences, people’s responses there do reflect the 
issue of US travel.

Leslie.


>
> That last wouldn't be surprising, but I'd hope that in that case
> some of the people who filled in the survey who adamantly said we
> ought continue to meet in the US would be willing to justify that
> on the list. If none were, then I think the IAOC ought consider
> that as a relevant input in their decision making. (Not as a
> winning argument, but as a relevant thing.)
>
> Thanks,
> S.


-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
[e-mail]
-------------------------------------------------------------------