On 13/04/17 09:30, Eric Gray wrote: > Stephen, > > Your argument seems to assume that people should feel a need to > publicly justify their feelings on any topic. No I did not argue that at all. > > That is simply not the case. I agree. OTOH, if nobody were in fact to adamantly argue in pubic to continue near term meetings in the US, then I do think that (as I already said) that is something the IAOC ought factor into their considerations. S. > > -- Eric > > -----Original Message----- From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent: den 13 april 2017 02:44 To: Joel > M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx; iaoc@xxxxxxxx; IETF > Announcement List <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Update on > feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102 > > > Hiya, > > On 13/04/17 01:27, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> >> I think that many of us take it as given taht it is desirable to >> meet in the US. > > I do not doubt that many IETFers likely think that. And I almost > agree with it. > > My only problem is that I'm sadly no longer sure that the present > tense is correct in your statement, which is just a shame. > > I fully agree with your statement cast into the past tense. > > I really hope that the future tense variant will be something with > which I can agree. At the moment I do not for the reasons stated (to > do with unpredictability). > >> In contrast, I am quite sure that folks who felt strongly that we >> should not meet in the US understood that for that to happen, they >> needed to make their voices heard. > > That's a fair point. I think though that it also puts on onus on any > folks who adamantly think we ought continue to meet in the US, to > also publicly justify that, given the opposite arguments already > voiced on the list. (I do realise there's a danger there of folks > going OTT, so I hope we all impose a bit of self-restraint if making > arguments either way.) > > Note though that my query was with Leslie's assertion that the survey > result and list traffic reflected similar levels of adamant > assertion. (I wasn't doubting that some of us are likely adamant > about any random or non-random topic:-) > > Cheers, S. >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature