On 8 Apr 2016, at 16:14, Scott Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > some on the IAOC wanted to go back to SD for IETF 100 but the facilities were not available > at the right time Ah, I was expecting the plenary drumroll to reveal just this - IETF100 at San Diego. A shame it couldn't happen, but perhaps an indicator we do need to keep planning 3-4 years out. And for the right venue, we should be able to slide the dates forwards/back a week or two. Tim > > 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 =- >> >> >> >