Michael StJohns wrote:
Hi Ole -
Sorry, but I read your comments as partisan as well. I took the use of
"boycott" and "what sort of message would we be sending" in your recent
messages as a clear bias in favor of going to the PRC.
I'm not going to comment on whether Ole has been appearing to be biased. (I
assume we are all biased -- if fact I'm sure of it -- but yeah, I understand the
concern about someone in a decision-making position sending messages that might
confuse management of a group discussion with advocacy. But, again, I'm not
commenting on whether I think Ole has or has not done that.)
I'm far more concerned that this thread has confused IETF goals and requirements
for discussing meeting venues and that many of the postings are moving towards a
precedent that the IETF really does not want to set.
I believe that the IETF has not previously challenged a venue on the basis of
political or social concerns. We've sometimes challenged it for matters of
logistics and cost, but not social policy.
I think it is an extremely dangerous precedent for us to change this. We are a
very diverse community and we are not formed with social policy as a goal. As a
group, we have no history with such discussions, nor do I believe that as a body
we have the skills.
Any attempt to make such factors essential to our decision-making now will
invite their being used in the future. From my limited knowledge of global and
national social and political issues, I am certain that every single country we
might consider could reasonably be challenged for its questionable history,
policies and/or practices.
If a country already has a pattern of hosting international meetings, then I
think it's fair for us to consider it now. If it does not already such a
history, it still might be, but again, I suspect venue logistics ought to be the
major conbcern, not venue politics.
Really, folks. This is not merely a slippery slope. It's a cliff.
Ietf mailing list