+1 on all of the analysis/ observations below. Couldn't say it better myself and have tried. john --On Sunday, August 29, 2010 17:10 -0700 Dave CROCKER <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> At the risk of turning this into a string of competing >> anectdotes > > > It turned into that long ago. In terms of the tone in these > discussions, folk continue to believe that their personal > experiences are relevant for deciding logistics policy in > choosing IETF meetings. > > Unfortunately, such folk constitute a remarkably skewed sample > of what is typically touted as the target population of IETF > attendees. > > The premise to these anecdotes appears to be that IETF > meetings are designed for people who have: > > * hefty corporate travel funding -- so money is > largely no object > * extensive travel experience -- therefore > accepting requirements > to handle > complex travel details > * frequent travel schedules -- so extraneous, > 1/2-day incremental > time and cost > doesn't mean much > * a full week at the meeting -- so remote > locations have minor > impact > * a desire to use meetings for tourism -- which is more > important than venue > convenience or > reliability > * complete lack of empathy for anyone not fitting into this > category > > "Lack of empathy" is typically being demonstrated by overt > hostility, but certainly dismissive handwaves. The concerns > of others simply do not matter and are to be classed as petty, > naive, or the like. > > It's difficult to imagine a more elitist demographic, > particular for a community that has been predicated on > diversity and inclusiveness. > > At the least, the IETF should be honest and re-cast its > community culture as being tailored for well-funded > professional meeting goers... > > d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf