Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

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

 



in another time and place, we invented killfiles because this class of discussion proves so counter-productive, its better not to see it.

I posit that IETF venue discussions map 1:1 onto godwins law.

I suggest that we separate consensus over standards from IETF process over venues, and let the IAOC decide on our behalf, flaws and all, where, and when we meet. If we are able to give input to the IAOC, I am more than content for that to happen OFF LIST. We devolve these decisions to others because over time, its proven more workable than mass-consensus.

My impression of what some people seem to want, is that their personal constraint-set be applied globally. I've never found that to be a good social principle. While it means excluding some participation, I think that in a meeting cycle like ours, with the issues ours faces, that was always going to happen. So, rather than take one, or five, or ten, noisy and rebarbative people's drive to flood mailing lists with noise, I suggest we accept the consequences of devolving decisions to smaller sets of people, like the IAOC.

The best we can hope for, is that the pain is shared around.  With over 1000 participants, it is likely that some peoples constraint set will take them out of attendance EVER. Again, while not desirable, its provably already happened. Why this is conflated into a general failure, rather than a very sad, but unavoidable necessary single-point failure I do not understand. 

I might add that if the excluded party feels this is oppressive, I am sorry. It is not intended to be. But, at some level, sooner or later, you have to be willing to say "I'm the problem here, not the remaining 999 people who have lesser constraints"

We do this all the time, when we elect local officials, at all levels of government. We accept the consequences of a disjoin between what WE want, and what THEY can achieve.

"its not fair" is really really bad, when its one or two voices against the wider community interest. "its not fair, but I accept its going to exclude me" is far better.

BTW, I am already aware I am functionally excluded from many things. IETF unscheduled WG meetings for instance. I do not flood this, or other WG complaining. I accept the inevitable.

Please, please, can we stop feeding this pernicious troll-subject.

-George
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
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]