Re: my summary of discussion regarding IETF #100



Skickat från min iPhone

28 maj 2016 kl. 19:49 skrev Jari Arkko 
<jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net>:

Folks,

There’s been a lot of email on this topic. This is my summary of the main 
take-aways. I am writing it as an AD responsible for tracking general 
discussions. This is my opinion only, not the IESG's or IAOC's, though I'm 
grateful for help from both. This is also not a suggestion on what we should 
do, but rather observations on where the discussion is. I think you'll hear 
from the IAOC or me more next week.

As Jamie noted recently, it is a good thing when a community can discuss its 
sensitivity to various issues, approach to diversity, expectations on meeting 
sites, and so on. I'm proud that the IETF can do that, and do that in the 
open. The situation is not the same in all organisations.

That being said, any discussion that becomes long, repetitive, and starts to 
frame various interests in terms of pitting different participants against 
each other, is in danger of creating divisions that will be difficult to 
repair. Not to mention burning out various community and committee members. I 
know I am stressed by this discussion, and I suspect a lot of other people 
are too. I think Stephen was right in calling for a cool-off period.

I also feel that we have a situation where any binary decision will end up 
with some set of people feeling that their concerns are not appreciated.

I wanted to make some observations about the discussion, however. There have 
been some lessons that are hopefully helpful in thinking about this topic.

To begin with a concrete issue that was at the beginning of the discussion: 
Families and companions have generally not factored into the meeting site 
selection process in any way in the past. However, during this discussion I 
believe understanding of the issues related to situations where families 
sometimes need to travel with a participant has increased. This recognition 
has been a useful lesson, and can be applied in future. The relevant 
discussion of this issue should find its way into the meeting venue selection 
criteria draft.

Also, I certainly think we all respect the need to have a welcoming 
environment for LGBT community, where the IETF meets. As we respect many 
other things, mentioned in the discussion.

But beyond that it gets more difficult. It is of course true that the IETF 
cannot solve all issues. Please do not expect that there can be *any* meeting 
that has no issues of some sort. However, it is fair to expect us to do two 
things: first, look for venues that maximize our collective ability to work 
to make the Internet better. And second, vary our meeting locations because 
we know that no venue is issue-free.

Several people have pointed out that it is very important that the IETF 
treats everyone's issues the same. I'd point out though that not everyone 
reacts in the same fashion, e.g., we need to be aware of people who are or 
have been silent about their issues, attempt to identify such issues, and 
consider those as well, fairly, *while* still needing to find a reasonable 
set of real-world venues.

This thread has also struggled with agreeing on the specific situation on the 
ground in Singapore. I suppose part of the difficulty is whether one looks at 
the practical situation or considers the consequences should the risks be 
realised. In any case, there is disagreement, though it is to be expected 
that different people would hold different views about the situation. 
Bridging those differences is, perhaps, not a reasonable goal.

There has been some discussion of positions of principle, topics where we 
feel strongly about something but that do not have a direct impact on our (+ 
possibly families) ability to participate. I think most of us agree that 
making explicit statements of principle about social issues writ large is 
outside the scope of organisations such as the IETF.

MEETING STRATEGIES FOR THE IETF

The detailed meeting selection criteria have been seen by all as important. 
Work on a draft is proceeding.

I’m aware that we've not met in Asia too often even after establishing the 
1-1-1* policy. Based on my recollection of various venue decisions, there are 
at least some practical reasons behind (cost and availability of venues) but 
the results are surprising. We've met in Asia for IETFs only four times in 
the last ten years (IETFs #94, #82, #79, and #76). We are not following 
1-1-1-* very strictly!

Speaking of 1-1-1-*, the best reference for this policy resides in IAOC 
minutes of a decision that the IESG made many years ago. This seems like an 
issue that needs to be fixed with proper documentation.

IAOC

Early on in the discussion, we all obviously realised that any small set of 
people are unlikely to spot as many problems as a broader community. The IAOC 
has started a practice of releasing lists of potential future meeting sites 
in an effort to "crowd-source" observations. This is not a solution to all 
problems, but certainly seems like a useful step. Some diversity can also be 
added internally, e.g., the meetings committee is planning to ask for 
additional volunteers.

The question of a more general transparency of what the IAOC is doing has 
been repeatedly raised and I think the community and the IAOC largely support 
going in this direction. Obviously a reasonable policy is needed with regards 
to what information can or can not be exposed to protect contracting; there's 
clearly more work here for the IAOC.

WHERE ARE WE?

But to finish this email, I wanted to say that IETF #100 is just one aspect 
both in the problem and solution. The IETF needs a way forward for #100, but 
it also seems like our community needs time to properly design the criteria, 
probably some external help in learning more about issues of diverse groups 
globally, some assurances that the IETF *does* indeed care about various 
issues that our diverse group has, and so on.


Excellent summary. Thx!