On 8/29/10 3:12 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > --On Sunday, August 29, 2010 14:29 -0500 Mary Barnes > <mary.ietf.barnes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Joel, >> >> Thank you so much for your sensitivity - you've done a >> wonderful job of re-enforcing the idea that IETF is a hostile >> environment for women. My guess is that you've never >> personally been in a situation where you've been on a train >> ... > > Joel, > > While I've tried to avoid commenting on the general whining and > complaining, I fear that I have to side with Mary on this one. > While our weighting factors are different, I think it is the > obligation of the Secretariat and the IAOC's meetings committee > to find locations at which the people who contribute > significantly can have an efficient and productive meeting, with > a minimum of distractions from logistical, health, and safety > problems. Right, so when you find those fault free-venues lets use them... In the mean time the netherlands was a lovely country where I was unable to stay longer. Our hosts were gracious and under the conditions we set for ourselves in 2008 it was the venue available. It was not problem free. > While one can take the position that people who don't > find a meeting site appropriate should just not come, doing that > changes the profile of people who are invited to participate in > the IETF from "interested in the improvement of the Internet and > (we hope) technically competent and willing to do work" to > include "have sufficient free time to spend extra time traveling > relative to other cities in the same region, have no health > problems that make one location more attractive than another, > aren't women traveling alone or those whose dress is > distinctive, don't have problems with air of marginal quality or > special food requirements, etc." > > I think that change would be a considerable disadvantage to the > Internet and the IETF; YMMD. > > I don't expect the Secretariat/ IOAC to cater to everyone's > slightest whim and I actually do expect those with special needs > to be willing to exert some extra effort, but I also expect that > the Secretariat/IAOC efforts will extend to making attendance > plausible for as broad a range of active participants as > possible. I also expect that those efforts will go beyond > believing whatever the would-be host tells the meeting > committee. And I believe that, if the IAOC selects an > out-of-the-way location (for whatever reason) in which we can't > be together in a single hotel or small cluster of > closely-located hotels that are readily accessible from a hub > international airport, the IAOC and Secretariat thereby take on > extra responsibility for being sure that the right information > is available and accurate. That extra effort and expectation > is, IMO, simply part of the cost of such a meeting -- if the > cost of having the Secretariat, IAD, or IAOC do the > investigations is too high, then the IAOC needs to decide that > the site is too expensive. > > Sure, we can all do our own checking and trip planning, but I > think that, somehow, it is in the best interests of the IETF > that most of us spend whatever time we are willing to contribute > on substantive work, not trying, one at a time, to track down > logistical details (I recognize that some people have corporate > or organizational travel departments who can deal with those > issues, but think it would be a bad idea to further bias IETF > participate toward them). > > And I find the evidence, via the venue survey and the failure to > understand that Minneapolis and Maastricht are very different, > that the IAOC doesn't "get" any of this to be extremely > problematic relative to the future of the IETF. > > Again, YMMD. > > john > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf