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

Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com> Sat, 28 May 2016 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <marie@mjmontpetit.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 2A56812D14A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mjmontpetit-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 FYuX3naxu7y3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22f.google.com (mail-qg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22f]) (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 6D1DF12D101 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 90so64660966qgz.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mjmontpetit-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=V2v3Il47Lf85OP0rF07ht71GHPf68n3kwpSd9+F8IIA=; b=L+YYyhnD06zH2Q0G3IWMzPNEWKqLWRp/mhtAP7VR/fyKBlz3zimVLYof1WQ7drRERZ xLN0dGIEWjokjGcIatfDMmPd9s+F9PZseMjTglKeXxwVtakzdbFERCZMtnHv1A0P6RlB u8ui1iS1vxyAT3IZa15AzTjINF0ezjqNQhLeNCX08NdsRlfCOE3PY44ZGPbjVTtOZgMW OLTvr/9G9TqNfX3xSVWfScN2w5oE090WdPIaZb601qMMGfKBr7iknwpQmpaXQYiLu3JS sFaFYtSrgZT4s0vBzfPQ+yBcwRf85CIxNVdkuLfwQWLLxx60y47O0jwhemQ8Cvkaxcv3 n+tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=V2v3Il47Lf85OP0rF07ht71GHPf68n3kwpSd9+F8IIA=; b=dot5NrQUcjjtKff6wq/cgviYzu3OaaHttu4GjeyJdtgb3qxehIRikoqm2Ow8Thmdl/ NLxf7tKEhcNplROyOLsKmClNwzwBKtzJ2OKGH50b1i7V3M8QtK9bkZIhySglXcxDWGCD ewsiCyrv7X4eOfJarxzTNZNSBzfyKO/O3XE2amcd6mxVD0/ouZU2XYWm5RtCxCKNp+aw hO96Pd6a5TmKnNsr9Y5mEfoBg2g9WwACWQj0zyWlA3fA9wfgIbuLO7lqLSShsR47ZnDC ewoelXXdaPDPWWmPtbpYUFPcyC/P+Ia95IcjKQu6MpYiWBF0VPffZyYIiJgvQxtopnQZ 8XYQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKa5KnvKRQODEyiR8APZ6HkfGIfZRNjwxKZ5uWtAN1YWxOEteXTYOEW0bK5sko0oA==
X-Received: by 10.140.98.140 with SMTP id o12mr19171100qge.8.1464472088432; Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (c-24-218-52-148.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [24.218.52.148]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o1sm7155196qte.36.2016.05.28.14.48.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 28 May 2016 14:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
From: Marie-Jose Montpetit <marie@mjmontpetit.com>
In-Reply-To: <5749FEF5.7020509@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:48:09 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <12C11E82-EE77-4C3E-8222-0534D4AA4F37@mjmontpetit.com>
References: <20160525220818.18333.71186.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <700D9CB7-4EFD-459B-AA12-133A6BB04E90@senki.org> <1C8639E6-1058-4D04-84ED-0C354E6567D1@cisco.com> <9CBABA69-1814-4676-9C69-E129F04AD24C@cisco.com> <5DFDEA43-8156-491D-A300-2BCED1AED1A4@gmail.com> <5747909C.20403@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2mGNPhUCzWyfAo_DYL3LhjkqRB13zXuj8wMqFQJfE4GA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEG3zt1ykuVTbi4_3nAAeCUiikXKR5HLj+8KG8U7yxo=NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr3DnzzxeRE8QbkDHS9HCP2Lu8pTbR6o9_ZL21RNNqa2sg@mail.gmail.com> <5749E35E.9030201@si6networks.com> <67e1079c-0937-d09a-79a5-a6c0487a3285@joelhalpern.com> <5749FEF5.7020509@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/uuuNgRSPlUEKQTKlVZ2pi7oJdOg>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, "Ietf@Ietf. Org" <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: Sat, 28 May 2016 21:48:11 -0000

My argument is much more pragmatic:
1. we should organize meetings in major airline hubs/lowest average ticket price (the current “world tour” is frankly out of reach of most of us)
2. we should make use of our own tech and allow full online participation (rtcweb/webrtc anyone?) - I wonder how all you guys can get budget to attend all meetings
3. we should not make any of our participants feel unwelcome (I remember sadly the syster rigmarole of a few years back)

Frankly if anyone at this point is rich enough to bring a family to IETF this is a personal matter. But we should not condone any government that is not welcome to everyone and could use the IETF brand to promote itself.

this is more than a 2-cent… Sorry (or not).


mjm

> On May 28, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>; wrote:
> 
> On 05/28/2016 03:34 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> Fernando,
>>    Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to
>> less-participating locations increases long term participation from
>> those locales.
> 
> No, it doesn't. Actually, I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
> 
> My point is that, for other aspects of "diversity", no measurements were
> expected/requested regarding whether going to a venue that is "friendly"
> to that community increases the participation of such community. --
> That's essentially my point: there doesn't seem to be consistency here.
> 
> Not sure why location should be a special case. Maybe some forms of
> diversity are just not desirable?
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> Recentattendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees