Hi,
Thanks, a cogent summary, though I think it underplays a couple of key
points:
1/ the cost of backing out of Singapore at this date (this is the
picture we’re trying to put together in a way that will be useful for
public consumption)
2/ whether a broader range of people than have failed to unsubscribe
from the IETF@ mailing list are on board with canceling (there are a few
different conversations that are going on in the background and they are
not all supportive of canceling).
Leslie.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Daigle
Principal, ThinkingCat Enterprises LLC
ldaigle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------------------
On 24 May 2016, at 10:19, Adam Roach wrote:
On 5/24/16 08:20, Leslie Daigle wrote:
an IETF meeting that is 18 months away is actually an IETF meeting
NOW for planning purposes.
What I'm hearing (here and elsewhere in the thread) is that we have a
long-term policy issue that we should address with considerable
deliberation and at a pace that respects the gravity of the issue; and
that we have an extremely short term "go or no-go" decision that needs
to be made now, right now, immediately regarding IETF 100.
While there have been a variety of positions put forth on the topic, I
think there's good evidence in this conversation that the final,
long-term policy that we'll form on this topic would probably, if
complete and in place today, rule out Singapore as a potential
destination. It's not a foregone conclusion, and I'm not trying to
claim anything like consensus. I'm just pointing out that it's a real
possibility.
From that perspective, it seems that the snap judgement that needs to
be made right now can only safely be made by revectoring to a
different location. If the situation is as urgent as you portray it to
be, it sounds like there's not time for the more protracted course of
action you propose, unless going to Singapore is a foregone conclusion
and this is merely an exercise in justification.
/a