In addition to Eric's well-said point, adamance is probably not the most
important factor.
To make up numbers, if 3/4 of the community thinks we should continue to
meet in the US, 23 or so percent think we shouldn't, and a small number
of people are adamant that we shouldn't meet in the US, the much larger
number of quiet people on both sides of the issue is FAR more important
than a small number of adamant voices.
In fact, we have a version of this problem with almost all of our
process discussions, wherein we weigh the strident voices on both sides
much higher than the interested, reasoned, but quiet participants.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/13/17 4:45 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
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.