ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

2016-05-24 01:44:41
(Forgive the top posting--airport thumb typing).

Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go
to mtgvenue(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.  For the short term IETF 100 discussion, I 
didn't see
an explicit pointer for where to participate.  Based on traffic to date, I
expect that to stay on ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.  Does that match what the IAOC
expects?

thanks,

Ted

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle 
<ldaigle(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com>
wrote:


(Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering
some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).

Again, I see 2 burning issues here:

1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, and

2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty
much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on
“2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies
after we settle out “1/“.

Spelling it out a little bit:

What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of)
the community’s requirements.  To date, our understanding has been that we
should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to
attend the meeting and get the work done.   We expect that people make
their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize
that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.

If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make
requirements include other things — such as suitability for family
attendance,  selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the
experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community —
that’s fine as long as its a consensus position.  And, the IAOC needs to
have the resultant requirements spelled out[1].   I argue that discussion
should take place on the aforementioned mtgvenue(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing 
list,
where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.

I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to
detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone
(especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in
silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).

And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.

So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100
will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or
never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).

Leslie.


[1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or
there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of
the mtgvenue dialog.


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------