--On Friday, November 1, 2019 17:28 -0700 Rob Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I wouldn't expect us to avoid holding a meeting in >> California... >> > > This issue has been discussed before: > > https://www.ietf.org/blog/barriers-entry/ Of course it has and, IIR, that discussion was what led us to cut back on meetings in the US until and unless things got better. The questions in this case are (1) Whether there might be any issues in Madrid at the time of the meeting that would require the kind of examination suggested in that discussion. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have an opinion on it. At the same time, while I think we need to be very careful about hyperbole, exaggerated conditions, or "fake news", I think it is important to ask the question. (2) It is not clear to me whether the (rather new) meeting site determination and meeting planning process and team consider it part of their responsibility to examine such questions, rather than, e.g., meeting room facilities and network connectivity. Whether they do or not, I think it is reasonable to ask that their view of their responsibilities be made clear to the IETF community. And, if they do not, I think it is reasonable to ask where and how such questions are to be addressed, keeping in mind the risks of out-of-control discussions with a surplus of ignorance and excitement and a shortage of facts. best, john
