Re: Legality of IETF meetings in PRC. Was: Re: Request for community guidance on issue concerning a future meeting of the IETF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ole Jacobsen <ole at cisco dot com> wrote:

If that was aimed at me, then let me state for the record that I have not attempted to argue for or against the proposal, just tried to clarify what I think the issues are and what the underlying issues might be with respect to holding a meeting in China. If my statements were read otherwise, then I apologize.

I'd suggest reading your posts again.

It's fine with me if you believe on an individual level that the risks are low, that the rules won't be enforced for some reason or that people will happily refrain from potentially risky subject matter, or that nobody will mount an intentional DoS attack against IETF by unfurling a banner and letting the hotel finish the job for them. But if you post this, I believe it should be clearly marked as an individual opinion, because leaving it unclear whether this is your opinion as IETF Trustee is incompatible with asking the question and tallying the results without bias.

(And one more time: I agree that the contract clause is unacceptable, at least if taken literally).

How can it not be taken literally? As I said in my other post, individuals can choose to ignore the speed limit signs and drive as fast as they want, but the organization cannot.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf


[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]