Hi,
(Still speaking for myself)
When the IAOC put together the follow up message with its proposal to
keep IETF 100 in Singapore, we did have some internal back-and-forth
about how much detail to put into the reasoning section. We had a few
of reasons for that:
+ it’s hard to share the specific data in a way that will communicate
information usefully to a cast of thousands who mostly aren’t thinking
in terms of, for example: an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is
actually an IETF meeting NOW for planning purposes. We can talk about
the details and options for taking different approaches, and this
community will, but they aren’t really options for taking different
approaches unless you are talking about a meeting that is a few years
out, and we’re not.
+ the data is entangled and some of it is conditional
(if-this-then-maybe-that) — I don’t believe we can present it
crisply and clearly
+ we are told, on many occasions, just how much this community does not
want to hear the inner workings of the IASA, and some people physically
recoil from the prospect of actually being on the IAOC. You (the
community) populate the IAOC to track these details and get the work
done. Let us do that.
All that having been said, and to give a preview of an answer to the
question of where/how to discuss IETF 100, I am asking the IAOC to share
more detail about the specifics of how we see the tradeoffs for IETF 100
in Singapore/not (from the practical level, only, and with the caveat
that it will be messy), and to present it in a way that we can hope to
get feedback from a much broader set of our community than is currently
engaging in this topic on the IETF@ mailing list.
On that last point — I’d like to be sure that, if we are asking the
community, we are doing our best to hear from all of our community,
including a broad spectrum of people from minority groups that have been
challenged by previous venue selections.
For at least some people, the sort of all-in discussion free for all
we’re engaging in here is not the most comfortable way to share those
experiences, and we’re not hearing all of those voices.
I hope to be able to share that, shortly — but it will be an IAOC
message, not on personal title, and, like any group of more than .5
IETFers, the IAOC needs some time to find its internal consensus.
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 23 May 2016, at 17:13, Alissa Cooper wrote:
Thank you Leslie. I agree with the strategy of pursuing two lines of
discussion, one about IETF 100 and one about the principles used to
guide meeting selection. I think it is clear just from the recent
thread that the principles discussion will take some time, in
particular because the principles are inter-related in different ways.
I don’t think it makes sense to rush that discussion to resolution
for the expediency of making a decision about IETF 100. In my personal
view I’d like to see some version of the inclusivity principle that
currently exists in Fred’s draft adopted as a rule for the road
going forward, and feel some shame that this was not done long ago
(same goes for the accessibility principle) but I’ll take that
opinion over to mtgvenue.
Now, about IETF 100.
After the plenary at IETF 95, the IAOC said that it was "gathering
information about the situation — including the full cost of
canceling existing contracts, so that the IETF community can have a
fuller picture from which to provide guidance for our next steps.”
But I don’t feel that our picture is much fuller than the picture we
had during IETF 95. Thus far the community hasn’t heard anything to
characterize the costs of moving IETF 100, nor the opportunities the
IAOC investigated for covering those costs, nor the possibilities for
other meeting options, nor the criteria that the IAOC used to evaluate
those other options given the unique circumstances of potentially
needing to relocate a meeting on short order (e.g., “relaxing" the
1:1:1* guideline for 2017, dealing with higher hotel room costs,
moving to different dates, etc.). We have heard some non-IAOC folks
make claims about some of those things, but we haven’t received any
specific insight from the IAOC about those things that could form the
basis from which the community can “provide guidance” on the
IAOC’s next steps. This is information the IAOC is exclusively
positioned to provide (unlike country-specific information from
travel.state.gov).
I realize that there are some details directly implicated by contract
negotiations that the IAOC may consider unwise to share on a public
mailing list. But it would seem that there is a good amount of detail
about each of the items above that can be shared with the community if
the point is to get well-informed feedback.
I raise this in particular because Cisco happens to be the host for
IETF 100. In chatting with folks around the company, it didn't seem to
me that anyone had been contacted by the IAOC about the possibility of
helping to offset costs associated with relocating the meeting, prior
to you sending your mail last week. This causes me to wonder about
exactly what the IAOC considered under the banner of "costs and
possibilities of moving the meeting to a different location" in coming
to its current decision.
I think it’s obvious that some folks have a clear-cut opinion about
whether Singapore is or is not a suitable venue for IETF 100 even in
the absence of this information. I would put myself in that camp —
having thought about this a lot recently and considered my own
participation and the potential impact on other participants, I
can’t support the decision to have the meeting there. But I would
still like to understand the implications if that decision is made,
and for others this may well be key information they need to ground
their input to the IAOC.
Thanks,
Alissa
On May 23, 2016, at 8:14 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------