On 24/05/16 07:43, Ted Hardie wrote: > (Forgive the top posting--airport thumb typing). > > Below you say that you expect the discussion of long term principles to go > to mtgvenue@xxxxxxxx. For the short term IETF 100 discussion, I didn't see > an explicit pointer for where to participate. Based on traffic to date, I > expect that to stay on ietf@xxxxxxxx. Does that match what the IAOC > expects? I've a similar question: there is also ongoing discussion of changing the default policy for how the IAOC handle business in general, and not just associated with meeting venues. I assume that ought also remain on ietf@xxxxxxxx but be good to get the IAOC's take on that too when you answer the above. Cheers, S. > > thanks, > > Ted > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Leslie Daigle <ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >> >> (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 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>