A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




(Not speaking for the IAOC, which does owe Ted a response, but offering some of my own perspective of the meta issues in this discussion).

Again, I see 2 burning issues here:

1/ what do we want to consider appropriate meeting sites going forward, and

2/ what to do with IETF 100/Singapore

We’re separating these two because the second has to get decided pretty much instantly, and in separating them we have to say that the outcome on “2/“ has to be a one-off, and might not be suitable under updated policies after we settle out “1/“.

Spelling it out a little bit:

What the IAOC does is make site selections based on (our understanding of) the community’s requirements. To date, our understanding has been that we should find sites that allow the greatest proportion of our participants to attend the meeting and get the work done. We expect that people make their own choices about attending or not attending a meeting, and recognize that is gated on personal choices and beliefs.

If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make requirements include other things — such as suitability for family attendance, selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our community — that’s fine as long as its a consensus position. And, the IAOC needs to have the resultant requirements spelled out[1]. I argue that discussion should take place on the aforementioned mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx mailing list, where the meeting venue selection requirements document is being discussed.

I don’t believe we can have that discussion quickly, with the attention to detail that it needs in order to ensure an outcome that fits everyone (especially including those who have been more comfortable suffering in silence than putting their challenges out for discussion).

And, we need to make a decision about IETF 100 quickly.

So, to be clear, whatever we decided to do with Singapore for IETF 100 will NOT be a statement about whether we ever meet in Singapore again, or never meet in Singapore again (depending on which way the decision goes).

Leslie.


[1] Not all requirements are necessarily feasibly implemented, and/or there are cost implications, but we can all have that discussion as part of the mtgvenue dialog.


--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]