some on the IAOC wanted to go back to SD for IETF 100 but the facilities were not available at the right time Scott > On Apr 8, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 =- > > >