On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie');>>
wrote:
On 21/05/16 22:38, Peterson, Jon wrote:
On 5/21/16 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having a
diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a
'business' reason - making use of everybody's talents to the
maximum - and that surely is the fundamental reason for the whole
site selection policy anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist
and vacation opportunities for family members. So...
There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though.
While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as
just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than
that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this
organization, and developing professional and personal relationships
here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity,
but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a
celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more
than usual.
When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around
longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of
where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a
meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be
celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a
consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we
should do about it.
We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it
sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think
there's a further question about this specific meeting location that
we should resolve with some urgency.
I think we should celebrate at IETF-128. We can start by
practising at IETF-96 and then have fun every 32 meetings
thereafter. We ought not be ruled by decimalisation:-)
More seriously, I'd have to agree with folks who've said
or implied that deciding what's on the list of criteria
and where is hard, and to be frank, I'm not at all sure
if I'd include family accompaniment and if I did, I don't
know where I'd put it relative to other priorities. So I'd
say it's not unreasonable that the IAOC are similarly
puzzled. We ought not aim for perfection at that level of
granularity I think. (Transparency and effectiveness, yes,
perfection, no.)
That IMO is all the more reason why the IAOC need to move
to a default-open policy to the fullest extent they can,
which I believe is way more than has been the case to date.
I suspect that that opinion perhaps now has the kind of
critical mass that someone might declare it as a rough
consensus of the IETF.
This seems like the clearest consequence of this debate. The IAOC's
opacity in choosing this venue and in their subsequent decision-making has
not helped to reassure the community that their input is being taken into
account.
In the meantime, wrt IETF-100, at this point I do think we
ought not make it a mega-celebration of any kind, regardless
of where it's held, but we can finesse that via powers of 2
(as per the above) or in whatever other way works.
Unfortunately, in practice, this is ultimately going to be up to us. Even
if the IETF doesn't throw a party, one can easily imagine some enthusiastic
sponsor or reporter seeing an opportunity for celebration.
I'm ok to leave the decision as to whether to stick with
Singapore or not to the IAOC. I don't think there's any way
we could decide that by consensus. I would just hope that
the IAOC can re-assure the rest of us that they have
explored all avenues before they come to a conclusion. (And
that they can explain those avenues when the time is right.)
Obviously, this is ultimately a practical decision, and the IAOC will have
to make the call together with the sponsor and other stakeholders.
But as I said at the mic in Yokohama, as long as something is in the
future, there's a possibility for change -- and IETF 100 is still more than
a year out. In this light, and in light of the feedback received so far,
it seems like the minimum the IAOC owes the community is a thorough
evaluation of what would be required to move the meeting elsewhere, and a
thorough explanation of their basis for concluding that those requirements
will or will not be met.
--Richard
S.
Jon Peterson
Neustar, Inc.