Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards
2016-05-24 22:39:16
On 24 May 2016, at 9:19, Adam Roach wrote:
On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting
NOW for planning purposes.
What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a
long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable
deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and
that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs
to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I
think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final,
long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if
complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential
destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to
claim anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real
possibility.
From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to
be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a
different location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to
be, it sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of
action you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion
and this is merely an exercise in justification.
I mostly agree with Adam.
I agree that we need to separate the two issues. And by that, I mean
separate them broadly.
I absolutely agree we need to fix the policy, and that such a fix would
involve a long-term discussion. It will take time to get things right.
But I think we also need to take a step back from the IETF100 issue when
we have the policy discussion. While the IETF100 discussion will be
instructive, it seems to me that we are in crisis mode. History shows us
that crises rarely result in good policy.
So let's deal with IETF100 now, with what we do (or will hopefully soon)
know. I think the fact the crisis is happening suggests in the abstract
that we should revector this one meeting without worrying too much about
setting precedents. That may or may not still make sense in the face of
more concrete information about our options.
Ben.
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, (continued)
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Adam Roach
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Leslie Daigle
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Adam Roach
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Randy Bush
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, John C Klensin
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Ole Jacobsen
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Michael Richardson
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Sandoche Balakrichenan
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Michal Krsek
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards,
Ben Campbell <=
- Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, George Michaelson
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Ted Hardie
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Michael Richardson
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Randy Presuhn
|
Previous by Date: |
Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore |
Next by Date: |
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, George Michaelson |
Previous by Thread: |
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, Michal Krsek |
Next by Thread: |
Re: A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards, George Michaelson |
Indexes: |
[Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |
|
|