Robert Elz wrote:
If the effect of that were to cause attendance at some site to be
so low that useful work was impossible, then the chances of a future
meeting there would be negligible - and that's the one thing that the
IETF (or IAOC or whoever) should consider
Robert,
Trying to follow up on Ted Tso's very reasonable comments...
You are suggesting an evaluation model that would cause going to a place that
resulted in poor attendance and other problems during the meeting, thereby
seriously damaging the effectiveness of that meeting. If we believe the
incremental cost and utility of a single meeting is small, then this is a
reasonable model.
If instead we know that costs are quite high -- as they are -- and we believe
that each meeting should be treated as strategically important, then we should
not be so cavalier in taking risks with their success.
d/
ps. I quite like Pete's suggestion to simply cross off the problematic section
of text. However, since it is really the host -- that is, a Chinese group --
and not "us" signing the thing, I suspect this approach has its own problems.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf