Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx> wrote:
> I am sorry to hear that. Our "open and inclusive process" comprises
> many participants from China who have traditionally faced harsh and
> unpredictable visa problems in North America. In fairness to them, we
> held that meeting in Beijing. Note that we did so following an
> extensive discussion on the IETF mailing list and after negotiating
> the removal of a rather ominous hotel clause, as well as an unfiltered
> network in the meeting venue.
Yes, and we did this openly, and I don't feel we did the same thing here.
And there were still surprises, I'm told.
I was very surprised at the announcement for 100.
I kinda thought we should go back to San Diego as for IETF 1.
(well. Maybe IETF101 should be same as IETF 1... maybe IETF 100 should be
same as IETF 0, and be entirely virtual...)
(I didn't go because I generally have funds for two IETFs a year,
and given the hassle, and my concerns about what I would eat, it was simpler
to skip. I skipped BA for a combination of economic, but primarily family reasons)
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature