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

"Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net> Fri, 27 May 2016 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bertietf@bwijnen.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 4091612D589; Thu, 26 May 2016 22:28:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.62
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.62 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 unQcNaaL6X1G; Thu, 26 May 2016 22:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net (lb3-smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net [194.109.24.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A9C912D583; Thu, 26 May 2016 22:28:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Macintosh-2.fritz.box ([83.163.239.181]) by smtp-cloud2.xs4all.net with ESMTP id zHUV1s0053vXPcr01HUWwX; Fri, 27 May 2016 07:28:31 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100
To: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.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> <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bertietf@bwijnen.net>
Message-ID: <0b45dbb3-2326-6006-fb6b-f4cdf5a92bfb@bwijnen.net>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 07:28:30 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <955df2106aa2e12cefbd450be022e779.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/v6RCD2YVw8iZBtXEUW7g2NsIM-U>
Cc: "recentattendees@ietf.org" <recentattendees@ietf.org>, Margaret Cullen <margaretw42@gmail.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>, "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: Fri, 27 May 2016 05:28:36 -0000

On 27/05/16 06:11, Dan Harkins wrote:
>   I would also like to suggest that the ability of certain members
> to bring their family on a vacation that coincides with an IETF
> should not be a governing factor in venue selection. Many people
> like to launder a business trip into a family vacation (myself
> included!) but that's not why the IETF exists and it should have
> no bearing on where we meet.

I tend to agree with that. If some of our regular participants cannot attend
themselves because of some (in my view) weird laws in a country, then
I agree we should avoid such country.

But if the problem is that a family member cannot accompany the participant,
then I think that is a thing we can consider, but it should not be a
determining factor for having a meeting at that place or not.

Just my opinion.
Bert