On 8/30/10 8:08 AM, Mary Barnes wrote: > Yeah - we should stop, but you're just perpetrating the mentality that > has caused alot of the debate. Unfortunately, folks have > mis-interpreted the concerns a minority of us experienced at the IETF > (since we are a minority in terms of IETF participation) as a dislike > of Maastricht or lack of appreciation for the graciousness of the > host. It has nothing to do with either. I personally found Maastricht > to be a charming city and the social was one of the best I've > attended. But, those two things IMHO have nothing to do with having an > effective business meeting that involves a diverse group of people. > > The concerns raised have to do with the fact that the meeting venue > did not satisfy the most basic requirements for a meeting that is > attended by a diverse group of people (who unfortunately are in the > minority) - access to food for people that are on restricted diets for > medical reasons, personal safety and easy/convenient access to the > meeting venue (I can't fathom how someone that might be in a > wheelchair could have managed attending this meeting). The dutch interpret article 1 of their constitutions as guaranteeing full access to participation in society. Both the rail system and the civic venues are fully accessible. > The fact that > we had lots of train hops wasn't that critical (although > inconvenient), but I do have issue that the meeting was in city that > is not setup to handle international travelers that might arrive at > odd hours in the night. I totally understand why the majority don't > get why this is a concern for some of us, but to dismiss it because it > wasn't an issue you personally have to deal with is the reason this > thread has gone on and on. Clearly, the concerns (of the minority) are > not considered important to others, which is a sad reflection on an > IETF that professes to be an open organization promoting participation > from a diverse group of people. > > Best Regards, > Mary. > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 04:02:00PM -0700, Randall Gellens wrote: >>> I think Mary is right. (I also don't like the attitude in some replies >>> that if anyone had a poor experience with Maastricht it is their own >>> fault for being a dolt.) >> >> FWIW, I don't like the attitude in some of the messages that if one >> doesn't agree Maastricht was a poor venue, one is an insensitive clod. >> >> It seems to me that some people found the venue less good, and some >> found it acceptable. (I found it acceptable, for instance. But I >> like trains. Even crowded short hop ones on a Friday afternoon when I >> am very tired.) >> >> Moreover, several of the dissatisfied seem to feel that anything less >> than total agreement requires yet another frontal assault on that >> disagreement. The present thread, if memory serves, got started by >> someone who decided that, since his ranting on another list didn't >> achieve the desired gnashing of teeth and rending of garments, he'd >> try again on the IETF list. >> >> I believe the IAOC has heard the complaints. We can stop now. >> >> A >> >> -- >> Andrew Sullivan >> ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxx >> Shinkuro, Inc. >> _______________________________________________ >> Ietf mailing list >> Ietf@xxxxxxxx >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf >> > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf