Melinda, On 14/11/2012 23:55, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 11/14/12 4:23 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: >> Agree. But also people (and perhaps organisations, that also are >> serious participants) in Latin America, Africa, and some parts of Asia >> has less income than their counterparts in North America. Some of the >> people from those places do serious efforts to attend the IETF. > > I have very, very little doubt that operators in less wealthy > countries are running into problems that are unfamiliar to most > IETF participants, and that need some attention from protocol > weenies. But, that said, work in the IETF is focused on > progressing documents and that requires continuity on the part > of participants. If someone can only attend when a meeting > is geographically close, that suggests that they'll attend > one meeting every <bignum> years. If they feel that remote > participation is sufficient, that's available now. So, I'm > not sure that what you're arguing addresses the reason there's > an IETF in the first place, and IETF working method, in the > second. I think that's probably the reason you're running into > pushback, even from people who think that the meetings should > move around more. I was refuting an argument about "/exclusionary/" in a previous email but you erased. The same argument can be used in both ways, to support Dave's or mine. And let's do not lose the focus. My point is not about venues, it is about something more: Evolving the IETF. That includes asking ourselves if we are enough open and international; and if open and international make us a better standarization body (perhaps no). That includes going to other venues, to have more official languages, doing more outreach activities, etc. My opinion is that being more open and international make us a better standarization body and today the IETF is not doing enough. Regards, as > > Melinda >