Hi Ole,
Yes, my email was "aimed" at your frequent postings on this subject in
combination with your current ISOC position. Let me note that most of your
postings on this subject, in my reading, implied (if not expressed) a
preference for a PRC IETF meeting.
That said, it's good that you clarified your intentions so clearly, and
there is no need for apologies here. Certainly not from your side. I hope
that my posting did not come over as aggressive (even passive aggressive) to
you. It was not meant this way. If it did, then it's my turn to ask for an
apology.
And I completely agree with the FUD comments---we have entirely too much FUD
on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_) Then again, risk tolerances are different amongst
different
people, and at least in part established through past experiences.
Discounting options of those with negative experiences (which, clearly, is
not FUD) is at least as harmful to the IETF as excessive, but
unsubstantiated FUD.
(Please don't ask me, or anyone else, about possible negative experiences on
the very subject country. If there were any, those involved could hardly
tell---unless they were die-hard anti-PRC activists. And comments of the
latter would probably not be a Good Thing on ietf(_at_)ietf, either...)
Regards,
Stephan
On 10/11/09 9:39 AM, "Ole Jacobsen" <ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Syephan,
You said:
"I had a leadership role in a large, semi-political organization, I
would not have argued strongly in favor or against a proposal on
which the leadership asks the community for input. Not even in a
private capacity."
If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have
not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to
clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues
might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements
were read otherwise, then I apologize.
I have no "skin in this game" as they say, and if we end up not
meeting in China that's completely fine with me. I just want to make
sure that we (as a community) decide this based on facts and not FUD,
especially since we have a great host, an excellent venue and so on.
The reason we asked the community for input is that this IS indeed an
unusual situation and it would not be prudent to proceed (in any
direction) without the kind of input that has been received. (And one
more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at
least if taken literally).
As for grouping people into categories, I am not sure how useful that
is either, since, as you say, some people may belong to both groups
(and there are probably more groups we can come up with). But I will
point out that we do have a set of criteria for meeting venue
selection and some of the items brought up in this discussion are
not part of those criteria. Perhaps they should be, but they are not
currently.
Ole
Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher, The Internet Protocol Journal
Cisco Systems
Tel: +1 408-527-8972 Mobile: +1 415-370-4628
E-mail: ole(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com URL: http://www.cisco.com/ipj
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf