> hum... from a strictly social POV, this whole argument > seems to hinge on an "us" v. "them" mentality. At what > point do participants and colleagues become part of tthe > "community"? This (not so) subtle split between our > engineering colleagues not blessed/cursed with living in > or under out own particular (comfortable) rules is demeaning > at best and outright harmful at worst. > I disagree; the rules of discourse within an IETF are the same for all comers. Those of the home country apply only in so far as the participant brings them along. That might be self-censorship issue to which others have alluded, or it might be concern that statements made at the mic or in email are archived and available to those in the home country. But the bar bof discussions and informal interactions are the same, and we can't really challenge the other issue without losing some other key parts of how the IETF operates. > > hum... (again). There is this right of sovreigns to make > rules (my house, my rules) - It is China, as a sovereign country, that created "One Country/Two Systems". I am merely pointing out that fact as a potential way to route around this rathole (if you do not agree it is a problem). > > Its not a perfect world kids. Being kind, polite and respectful > goes a long way. > Agreed. >> >> Again, I want to commend the IAOC on their consultation, and I hope >> that we can find some way forward that meets the community's needs as >> equitably as possible. Speaking only for myself, > > for the -whole- community ... :) > Whole-heartedly agreed. regards, Ted Hardie Still speaking, of course, as an individual _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf