Stephen, You used the word "onus" - which can be interpreted to mean "duty" or "responsibility." For me, at least, the distinction between duty, responsibility and "need" is practically non-existent. This the basis of my objection to what you said. Even if you disagree with this interpretation, however, I very much doubt that anyone should feel an "onus" to publicly defend their opinion on any topic, much less on a topic that is as likely to be unpopular with one group or another as this topic is. I also doubt that this applies to any "onus" to state the degree or strength of conviction regarding an opinion, even if one is willing to state it. If your point is that perhaps the degree to which any response was "adamant" should probably have been omitted, then I agree. But, if your point is that the willingness of one group of respondents to state their degree of conviction places any duty or responsibility on anyone positing a different opinion to similarly state a degree of conviction, then I feel a need to disagree. Perhaps adamantly. :-) -- Eric -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: den 13 april 2017 10:45 To: Eric Gray <eric.gray@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; 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 Importance: High 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. >