On 21/05/16 22:38, Peterson, Jon wrote: > > On 5/21/16 1:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having a >> diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a >> 'business' reason - making use of everybody's talents to the >> maximum - and that surely is the fundamental reason for the whole >> site selection policy anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist >> and vacation opportunities for family members. So... > > > There's a reason this discussion has come up around IETF 100, though. > While I'm sure IETF participants would be tempted to view this as > just another meeting, there's a sense in which it has to be more than > that. A lot of us have spent much of our careers working in this > organization, and developing professional and personal relationships > here. IETF 100 will be a work meeting and not a vacation opportunity, > but I think attached to that work meeting should also be a > celebration, and one where the personal relationships may matter more > than usual. > > > When I hear that long-time participants, people that have been around > longer than me, feel like they need to sit this one out because of > where it is happening, or worry about bringing their families to a > meeting where we expect that these enduring relationships will be > celebrated, that makes me think we as a community need to arrive at a > consensus about whether or not this is okay, and if not, what we > should do about it. > > > We do need to set better general policies for venue selection, and it > sounds like the IAOC is starting to look into that. But I think > there's a further question about this specific meeting location that > we should resolve with some urgency. I think we should celebrate at IETF-128. We can start by practising at IETF-96 and then have fun every 32 meetings thereafter. We ought not be ruled by decimalisation:-) More seriously, I'd have to agree with folks who've said or implied that deciding what's on the list of criteria and where is hard, and to be frank, I'm not at all sure if I'd include family accompaniment and if I did, I don't know where I'd put it relative to other priorities. So I'd say it's not unreasonable that the IAOC are similarly puzzled. We ought not aim for perfection at that level of granularity I think. (Transparency and effectiveness, yes, perfection, no.) That IMO is all the more reason why the IAOC need to move to a default-open policy to the fullest extent they can, which I believe is way more than has been the case to date. I suspect that that opinion perhaps now has the kind of critical mass that someone might declare it as a rough consensus of the IETF. In the meantime, wrt IETF-100, at this point I do think we ought not make it a mega-celebration of any kind, regardless of where it's held, but we can finesse that via powers of 2 (as per the above) or in whatever other way works. I'm ok to leave the decision as to whether to stick with Singapore or not to the IAOC. I don't think there's any way we could decide that by consensus. I would just hope that the IAOC can re-assure the rest of us that they have explored all avenues before they come to a conclusion. (And that they can explain those avenues when the time is right.) S. > > > Jon Peterson > > Neustar, Inc. >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>