ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meetingof the IETF

2009-09-29 23:04:51

Adam,

Not quite. I think we have heard the comments of the community loud 
and clear and we are working hard to deal with the issues. I also 
should state that we have not formally made a decision about this 
proposed meeting. The survey is still open, and comments are still 
coming in, both on the public list and in private. That is why I said 
"stay tuned, there is more to come."

And, no I wasn't speaking formally for the IAOC, just expressing a
snapshot, rough-consensus opinion. If my comments were interpreted
as dismissing the feedback, then I apologize. My goal has only been
to clarify. I have no personal stake in whether we go to China or
not. I just want to make sure that our decision is based on an overall 
evaluation of the facts as we know them, and very much with the input
of the community.

We're not done yet, and we hear you.

Ole


On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Adam Roach wrote:

Earlier in this thread, I had interpreted your comments being a representation
of your opinion on the topic. However, your later emails imply (or, as above,
expressly state) that you are speaking on behalf of the IAOC.

If the statement of "everything will be okay, and the concerns of several
dozen IETFers are misplaced" is your personal opinion, then I completely
understand. I know that there has been a *lot* of work behind the scenes to
pull this together. It would be very hard to be involved in that work without
becoming deeply emotionally invested in the outcome. I honestly sympathize
with your position, and completely understand why you would hold it
personally.

However, if the position you have repeatedly espoused is actually a formal
statement of the IAOC's position, then I am worried about the IAOC's motives
in starting this thread. That would make it seem that the "request for
community guidance" was actually a request for a pro-forma approval of the
IAOC position. If you are speaking as an IAOC representative, then your goal
in this thread appears to have been exclusively aimed at attempting to refute
or dismiss the community's concerns, rather than listening to them.

I don't mean to imply that there hasn't been a smattering of support for your
position. But on the balance, if I had to call consensus on this question, it
would definitely fall on the side of "there is significant community concern
about this provision."

Your statement that I quote above is a continuation of your pattern of
interaction on this thread: dismissing any concerns that anyone has raised on
the topic. And that would be fine as a personal position. However, you are now
attributing your position of wholesale dismissal to the IAOC.

In which case I would humbly offer some advice: if the IAOC is not willing to
accept community input, it should not have solicited it.

/a


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>