Hi Eliot,
Quoting your item message, as you prefer, and responding inline.
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 5:40 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Ted,
On 5/23/16 10:31 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Hi Ted,
Put more bluntly: there will *always* be some group who is at least
inconvenienced and at most prohibited from attending a meeting.
A commitment to inclusiveness is something that takes work. If you give
up on it *ab initio *as impossible, it is not a principle, it is window
dressing.
You have, however inadvertently, taken a single sentence out of context
and distorted the meaning of my message. I wrote in that same message:
Quite frankly barring a location itself is a form of exclusion, especially
when taking into account economics. It may be an *appropriate* exclusion
if going there means that many others would be excluded. Kathleen and
Suresh, and later Dave and Narelle, have made clear that
diversity/inclusiveness is a broad notion. Gender, sexual preference, and
nationality are all listed in Fred's draft, as is religion. {...}
And this:
What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to
new members because of their governments' laws. They need to be considered
in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have not been, and
often aren't. That is particularly problematic because it risks the future
of this organization, which isn't growing very quickly, to begin with.
While you are certainly entitled to worry about this, reacting to the
worry as you have still feels to me like abandoning the principles *ab
initio*, rather than trying to apply them and seeing where the rough points
lie.
One issue that your and others' analyses seems to imply is that the 1-1-1-*
formulation is not sufficient. If it were, finding a small number of
venues that suited us and shuttling among them would generate the fairness
required. If the pure 1-1-1-* were sufficient, knowing one venue worked
(as a strawman, Yokohama) would mean would not have to investigate other
places. But your analysis suggests that you believe that this is not
enough, and that we need to also go to South Korea, China, Taiwan, etc., to
be fair.
Or am I misreading you?
And so, it's a matter of who we decide to exclude,
And I think this is an astonishingly bad formulation. I would say instead
"It's a matter of how include folks who cannot meet in a specific venue".
and the impact that will have on the future of this organization. The
only question is whether we will make those decisions consciously and
conscientiously or not.
Based on the criteria discussed up thread, if you seek such a rigid
standard, you will exclude fair access
(by the way, your use of "fair access" here is what caused me to conclude
that you did not think 1-1-1-* was enough to generate fairness. If that is
wrong, explaining would help)
to engineers from some of the largest and most populous countries on the
planet, including India, China, most of Japan, and by the way South Korea,
all but one of those places we have already visited. These people are not
simply going to evaporate if we don't accept their participation, but
rather they will find other avenues to acceptance of their work. At the
same time, critics will say that the IETF is a western endeavor that
promotes only western values
I think if we come to consensus on the values, they are our values.
and not a truly international organization. This, itself, is a form of
fragmenting of the Internet.
I think that particular hyperbole is damaging. We are not fragmenting the
Internet by requesting that the physical meetings of one of its technical
bodies be constituted to treat its own principles seriously.
Ted
Eliot