Stephen,
Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to publicly
justify their feelings on any topic.
That is simply not the case.
--
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44
To: Joel M. Halpern <jmh(_at_)joelhalpern(_dot_)com>; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
iaoc(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; IETF Announcement List
<ietf-announce(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
Hiya,
On 13/04/17 01:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to meet
in the US.
I do not doubt that many IETFers likely think that. And I almost agree with it.
My only problem is that I'm sadly no longer sure that the present tense is
correct in your statement, which is just a shame.
I fully agree with your statement cast into the past tense.
I really hope that the future tense variant will be something with which I can
agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated (to do with
unpredictability).
In contrast, I am quite sure that folks who felt strongly that we
should not meet in the US understood that for that to happen, they
needed to make their voices heard.
That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any folks who
adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to also publicly justify
that, given the opposite arguments already voiced on the list. (I do realise
there's a danger there of folks going OTT, so I hope we all impose a bit of
self-restraint if making arguments either way.)
Note though that my query was with Leslie's assertion that the survey result
and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant assertion.
(I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant about any random or
non-random topic:-)
Cheers,
S.