My argument is much more pragmatic:
1. we should organize meetings in major airline hubs/lowest average ticket
price (the current “world tour” is frankly out of reach of most of us)
2. we should make use of our own tech and allow full online participation
(rtcweb/webrtc anyone?) - I wonder how all you guys can get budget to attend
all meetings
3. we should not make any of our participants feel unwelcome (I remember sadly
the syster rigmarole of a few years back)
Frankly if anyone at this point is rich enough to bring a family to IETF this
is a personal matter. But we should not condone any government that is not
welcome to everyone and could use the IETF brand to promote itself.
this is more than a 2-cent… Sorry (or not).
mjm
On May 28, 2016, at 4:26 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On 05/28/2016 03:34 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Fernando,
Your response assumes that it is proven that moving to
less-participating locations increases long term participation from
those locales.
No, it doesn't. Actually, I don't know. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
My point is that, for other aspects of "diversity", no measurements were
expected/requested regarding whether going to a venue that is "friendly"
to that community increases the participation of such community. --
That's essentially my point: there doesn't seem to be consistency here.
Not sure why location should be a special case. Maybe some forms of
diversity are just not desirable?
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees