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

[Marie-Jose Montpetit <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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: [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Recentattendees mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees