Yes, the OP (that would be me) realized 48h too late that it would have
been awesome to have set the reply-to to the venue-selection address.
Sigh.
I also should have noted in the message that venue-selection is for
dropping off input for review by meeting planners (though the archive is
publicly visible). The list settings are selected to discourage
discussion threads. To the extent people need to debate the challenges
and realities of crossing borders (e.g., the UK-has-required-decryption
thread), the IETF discuss list is the better place for it.
And, as Spencer noted, the IAOC has asked for more structured input on
the specific questions related to IETF 102 — in a structured form to
1/ give people the option of reasonable anonymity and 2/ give the IAOC
some possibility of being able to digest the input from a lot of
responses (over 150 so far).
See original message, below.
Forwarded message:
From: IAOC Chair <iaoc-chair(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
To: IETF Announcement List <ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Cc: iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Request for feedback on US-based meetings
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:25:27 -0700
As the realities of global travel continue to change, the IAOC is
endeavouring to monitor the situations that will impact all of our
participants. We met this week in the United States, a country that
has made moves to change its visa and visitor requirements abruptly
and significantly in recent weeks. Prior to the meeting, we received
input from people who would be unable to attend the meeting in
Chicago. We are interested in hearing whether or what unusual or
additional challenges people faced as they prepared their travel
and/or crossed the border to come to the Chicago meeting.
To that end, we have created a form for providing input. Please share
your thoughts here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WMNH9PS
Your contribution will be kept confidential within the IAOC and its
Meetings Committee. We are only asking you to identify yourself if you
are willing to be contacted for follow up.
Context:
We have more meetings booked in the US in the upcoming years, and are
reassessing these. We continue to monitor the situation for people
traveling to this country (as we do for travel to other IETF meeting
host countries), and will make updates as and when necessary. We are
also conscious, however, that travel requirements may make it
difficult for US residents to travel to a non-US IETF meeting with a
reasonable expectation of a smooth return home. They may be only able
to attend US meetings.
In all cases, our aim is to provide a meeting venue that will support
the work of the IETF — including accessibility for participation.
With the unpredictability of US immigration laws, it is difficult to
assess whether holding IETF 102 in San Francisco (as currently
scheduled) will yield the level of accessibility the IETF expects and
plans for its meetings. However, if we are to secure a suitable
alternative location, we need to decide to do so in the very near
term.
Your input in the form would be most helpful.
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle(_at_)thinkingcat(_dot_)com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 31 Mar 2017, at 16:32, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On Mar 31, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Randy Bush <randy(_at_)psg(_dot_)com> wrote:
Please send input to venue-selection(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org.
so, i am curious. do people
o think their imput is more important than that of we small people,
o can't read or follow instructions,
o or some other thing i do not understand?
Probably a combination of (1) and (2) - but it’s a pity that the OP
(original poster) didn’t set the “Reply-To:” header in their
email. That would have been a perfect use for it.
Ross.