Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

In addition to Eric's well-said point, adamance is probably not the most 
important factor.
To make up numbers, if 3/4 of the community thinks we should continue to 
meet in the US, 23 or so percent think we shouldn't, and a small number 
of people are adamant that we shouldn't meet in the US, the much larger 
number of quiet people on both sides of the issue is FAR more important 
than a small number of adamant voices.
In fact, we have a version of this problem with almost all of our 
process discussions, wherein we weigh the strident voices on both sides 
much higher than the interested, reasoned, but quiet participants.
Yours,
Joel

On 4/13/17 4:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 13/04/17 09:30, Eric Gray wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >
> > Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to
> > publicly justify their feelings on any topic.
> No I did not argue that at all.
>
> > That is simply not the case.
> I agree.
>
> OTOH, if nobody were in fact to adamantly argue in pubic to
> continue near term meetings in the US, then I do think that
> (as I already said) that is something the IAOC ought factor
> into their considerations.
>
> S.
>
>
> > -- 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.