Hang on a moment, Melinda: On 5/22/16 7:39 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > On 5/22/16 7:18 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to >> new members because of their governments' laws. They need to be >> considered in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have >> not been, and often aren't. > > You know, I've been arguing for a long time that we would > benefit a lot from making the organization less dependent on > meetings, and the feedback I've gotten from you and others > taking the position that it's okay to meet in locations > like Singapore is that no, we really need face-to-face discussions > and hallway conversations. I didn't actually make that argument. I do agree that more use of online mechanisms is better. But this discussion isn't about that. This discussion is about how we choose venues when we're going to have f2fs. > Early in this discussion everybody > agreed that yes, our top priority is getting work done, but > here you are suggesting that maybe getting work done can take > a backseat to making sure that people who are not currently > involved and not doing any IETF work can attend. Then there's > the notion that we do our work on mailing list being chucked > aside to be replaced by the flat statement that if someone > cannot attend a meeting we are foreclosing participation by > them (with the implied suggestion that the requirements of > people who are not yet involved trump the requirements of > some long-time participants). Sorry- but there is no doubt that f2f meetings are high bandwidth compared to any electronic form of communication. And I'm saying that if we're going to have them we have a choice of who we disadvantage, for surely we will disadvantage someone. This discussion is about how that choice is made. Eliot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature