IETF-100 maybe it's mostly been said? (Was: Re: [Recentattendees] Backgr

Not really addressing Margaret, but us all...

On 26/05/16 21:21, Margaret Cullen wrote:
> What about the IAOC writing to the IETF list and/or recent attendees
> when they are considering going to a new country, asking if anyone
> has any feedback on the idea?  And then considering that feedback
> _before_ making a final decision, signing a contract, etc?
So we seem to be at the point where this mega-thread is so long
that people haven't seen the start of it. Exactly the above was
agreed to be done, and was done, some time back. (Sorry I don't
have the URL to hand now.)

Perhaps we ought all take this as a signal that the signal to
repetition ratio for this thread has reached a point where we
might all step back from the keyboards for a day or two and see
what additional information the IAOC can come back with in about
that time frame?

I really don't see new points arising in the meantime that are
so pressing that they can't wait, and for all the urgency of
getting a decision about IETF-100, I don't think a day or two's
breathing space for the IAOC will make a substantive difference
to the eventual outcome. It might also give us all a while to
ponder the difficult dilemma more thoroughly and even more
thoughtfully, but a bit more calmly perhaps.

Cheers,
S.

PS: I'm not on the IAOC so I just guessed a day or two might help
them. I'd be fine if it were a day or four or five. A break like
that from this thread would help me though even if it didn't help
the IAOC;-)

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature