On 05/28/2016 02:53 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > the IETF has had a geographic diversity policy > > for a long time, while other forms of diversity were represented less/later. > > No, the IETF has NOT had a geographic diversity policy for its > meetings for a long time. > > Maybe we disagree on what the term geographic diversity means? To me, a > policy that says "we schedule meetings on three continents because > that's where our participants are" makes it easier for people from > diverse locations to participate, and thus is a policy intended to > facilitate geographic diversity. What's curious about this approach is that folks don't argue or object it, whereas e.g. none in their right mind would argue something like "we mostly prefer 'straight' people because that's what most of our participants are". Similarly, some folks argue that that before the IETF has scheduled meetings in say, latinamerica, latinamerica should have a sensible number of people -- whereas none in their right mind would argue "there should be a sensible number of active LGBT participants before discussing the IETF 100 venue issue". It would seem to me that there are some groups where diversity is meant to be applied, but others to which different "principles" apply. -- but if all this is done in the name of diversity, one would expect consistency, regardless of the specify "minority" that is affected. e.g., I haven't seen an email flood regarding why latinamerica isn't included in the rotation, or a formal response from anyone regarding that. (Note: I'm not arguing in favor or against meeing in LATAM... just talking about consistency here). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492