--On Saturday, November 2, 2019 08:02 +1300 Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > IMHO we should not discuss here any aspect except the narrow > technical one whether a successful IETF meeting in Madrid in > July 2020 is possible. In fact it seems to be the > responsibility of IASA, and the meeting planners in > particular, to check this and let us know if there are any > risks. > > I certainly don't want to enter into political debates here, > on matters where most of us are ill-informed and not > personally affected. Brian, While I almost entirely agree, I note that we've had discussions on this list about IETF participants being harassed or arrested because of personal behavior or various "preferences" (aspects of their lives that may not be discretionary choices, and hence not preferences in the usual sense at all). If there were significant risk of IETF participants being harassed or arrested because of their views on the relationship between Catalonia and the rest of Spain (I note Jordi's description used the terms "criminal activities" and "trying to break Spain and circumvent our laws" ... and, before this turns into precisely the debate you want to avoid, also note that I said "rest of Spain"). I also agree with Diego, and presumably you, that this list is not a good place for discussions of "politics, fake news, and deliberate exaggerations" and not just because most of us are ill-informed. I wouldn't expect us to avoid holding a meeting in California because some of our participants might believe the state should be divided in two or to avoid a meeting in Montreal because there are people there and further to the north and east who believe Quebec should withdraw from Canada. And, of course, the US and Scotland were, historically, both involved in rather nasty wars over who has the right to secede from a country and under what terms (including whether such beliefs or actions taken to support them were appropriately classified as criminal acts). One might draw some analogies to the former Soviet Union as well. There are obviously differences among those examples and between them and the Spanish case. Your last paragraph clearly would apply to debates about those situations or the distinctions on this list. At the same time, it is not clear to me whether the meeting planners consider it part of their mandate to evaluate the relevant tensions and any possible resulting interference with the ability to hold a successful meeting and for any active IETF participant to attend without having significant concerns about what they would define as mistreatment (remember that we have set interesting precedents about meeting in the US that might or might not be relevant). It would be useful to get a statement from them --sooner rather than later-- about where they think their responsibilities begin and end. If they end before they would get to evaluations of local tensions (including whatever might be classified as criminal by relevant authorities) and whether they might pose a threat to however we (and affected participants) might define as a successful meeting, then I think that boundary, and who or what does have responsibility for those discussions, are probably an appropriate topic for this list. So is who is accountable to the community for whatever decisions are made and how they are accountable. Obviously not an easy line, or set of lines, to draw. But dismissing the need to do so by making inflammatory statements (such as a few in this thread.. but nothing in your note) is probably not a helpful way forward. best, john
