Re: IETF 62
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 20 September 2004 11:06 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA20634; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9M5q-0003Bv-3S; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:12:26 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9Lt9-0000EH-6o; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:59:19 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C9Lsl-00004v-AL for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:58:55 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20252 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:58:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ns.jck.com ([209.187.148.211] helo=bs.jck.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C9Lyu-00034G-01 for ietf@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 07:05:16 -0400
Received: from [209.187.148.215] (helo=scan.jck.com) by bs.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C9Lsf-000Gfp-7y; Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:58:49 -0400
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 06:58:48 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, Sam Hartman <hartmans@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <086DEF6FF9C4B05CFC8D3455@scan.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <414E7EA0.1020409@netlab.nec.de>
References: <20040911210653.A62C48958A@newdev.harvard.edu> <012c01c49b03$ef7f21b0$0400a8c0@DFNJGL21> <3744.1095366813@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> <20040917082340.GC11438@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <20040917085228.GA1019@danisch.de> <20040917121521.63fcf133@chardonnay> <16715.9211.456204.708279@saint.heaven.net> <414BE4F9.3020503@netlab.nec.de> <tslllf5bx7t.fsf@cz.mit.edu> <414E7EA0.1020409@netlab.nec.de>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IETF 62
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--On Monday, 20 September, 2004 08:54 +0200 Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de> wrote: >> Secondly, I'm concerned that people are proposing optimizing >> for pleasant climate and good vacation spots. I come to the >> IETF to get work done; I'd rather be at meetings where the >> other participants have the same goal. We should be somewhat >> careful of optimizing for enjoyable location. I'd rather see >> us optimize for who can attend and cost. > > If you have data that shows an inverse proportionality between > the enjoyability of past locations and the generated IETF > output, please post it. Lars, I have no idea about actual IETF experience, but, based on experience with other organizations and meetings of similar technical focus, the key issue is not whether those who go can get work done, or even whether some people decide to go it if is a nice place. Rather, it is the tendency of people who have to review and approve travel to look at a destination, pronounce the words "probable boggle" and then say "no". And I've seen enough situations in which that has occurred to make that a real concern. It probably isn't enough of a concern to say "we absolutely should, or should not, meet there", but it should be a significant consideration. On other observation on the US situation. In the few years, we have had a significant problem with participants from some countries getting to US meetings at all due to increasing scrutiny of visa applications and consequent difficulties in getting visas. Sometimes, those delays have been equivalent to visa denial, even when no formal denial occurs. Those restrictions are qualitatively different from, e.g., the fingerprint issue, since they prevent someone from even making the decision as to whether they are willing to put up with the marginal aggravation and intrusion to attend. Classes of IETF participants are excluded entirely depending on their nationality or normal residency, and that has a direct on IETF openness and global participation. That is, fwiw, I've been suggesting that we reduce the focus on meetings in the US for a few years now. As others have pointed out, doing that isn't quite as easy as would appear to be the case at first glance but, IMO, we should keep trying. regards, john _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
- first steps (was The other parts of the report...) scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… scott bradner
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Carl Malamud
- What we need done (Re: first steps (was The other… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… John C Klensin
- Re: What we need done (Re: first steps (was The o… avri
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Harald Tveit Alvestrand
- Re: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Dave Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… graham.travers
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Steve Crocker
- RE: first steps (was The other parts of the repor… Joel Jaeggli
- IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Spencer Dawkins
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) shogunx
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Michael Richardson
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Tim Chown
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) william(at)elan.net
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Hadmut Danisch
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Henrik Levkowetz
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Dick St.Peters
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 Sam Hartman
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 John C Klensin
- Re: IETF 62 Lars Eggert
- Re: IETF 62 (was: Re: first steps) Mark Allman
- RE: Meeting locations (was IETF 62) Robin Uyeshiro
- Re: IETF 62 Scott Michel
- Re: IETF 62 Michael D Frisch
- Re: IETF 62 Ted Faber