Melinda,
On 14/11/2012 23:55, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are
serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia
has less income than their counterparts in North America. Some of the
people from those places do serious efforts to attend the IETF.
I have very, very little doubt that operators in less wealthy
countries are running into problems that are unfamiliar to most
IETF participants, and that need some attention from protocol
weenies. But, that said, work in the IETF is focused on
progressing documents and that requires continuity on the part
of participants. If someone can only attend when a meeting
is geographically close, that suggests that they'll attend
one meeting every <bignum> years. If they feel that remote
participation is sufficient, that's available now. So, I'm
not sure that what you're arguing addresses the reason there's
an IETF in the first place, and IETF working method, in the
second. I think that's probably the reason you're running into
pushback, even from people who think that the meetings should
move around more.
I was refuting an argument about "/exclusionary/" in a previous email
but you erased. The same argument can be used in both ways, to support
Dave's or mine.
And let's do not lose the focus. My point is not about venues, it is
about something more: Evolving the IETF. That includes asking ourselves
if we are enough open and international; and if open and international
make us a better standarization body (perhaps no). That includes going
to other venues, to have more official languages, doing more outreach
activities, etc.
My opinion is that being more open and international make us a better
standarization body and today the IETF is not doing enough.
Regards,
as
Melinda