Subject: Re: [Diversity] Concerns about Singapore

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:55:12 -0700

Hi Nalini,
At 06:08 10-04-2016, [email-masked] wrote:
>Guys, believe me, I am not for discrimination in any form whatsoever 
>and of course, it is wonderful if IETFers want to bring their family 
>with them to locations but isn't it more important for the IETFer 
>themselves to attend and to not be harassed?   Does IETF need to 
>plan for not just attendees but attendee's families?

I'll skip the question.

>A lot of us have never said anything but people might want to read 
>the section that is in Wikipedia on "White Privilege".
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
>
>This might help put a different perspective on this discussion.
>
>I know at least one participant at IETF95 who was searched multiple 
>times at the same airport because his skin was brown and we suspect 
>that he was profiled.  You may look at compilations which have rank 
>countries by racist attitudes and in some, the United States comes in first.
>
>But, you do not hear us talking about this or even complaining or 
>suggesting that we are getting an unfair deal.  We just work harder 
>and try to support each other.

The pie chart of IETF 95 attendees shows that approximately 35% of 
the attendees were from the United States.  It's striking that the 
attendees who raised issues about IETF meeting venues are usually 
from the United States.  I guess that IETF attendees from the United 
States are quite vocal about unfair deals.

>And, this kind of thing - getting hassled, ignored in restaurants, 
>possibly physically assaulted if we are in the wrong area, etc.etc. 
>is for IETF participants.  Not, IETFer's bringing their families - 
>which I will add is not an option for many in the developing world 
>because it is far too expensive.  It is hard enough for the IETFer 
>himself / herself to attend - much less bring their family.

I don't recall reading a lot of complaints about Hawaii being an 
exotic location or being too far.    There are usually complaints 
when an IETF meeting is held outside Northern America.  Do people 
outside the United States complain about discrimination, being 
ignored, etc.?  A quick look at [email-masked] does not show a 
significant volume of issues from the 65%.

The following is from Paypal: 
https://www.paypal.com/stories/us/paypal-withdraws-plan-for-charlotte-expansion 
Will the IETF adopt a similar position about Singapore?

>Let's try to work with each other and support each other to bring 
>the collaborative attitudes and openness that underlie the Internet 
>and the openness of the IETF to the developing world.  I think that 
>we are agents of change just as the Internet is an agent of 
>change.  Unfortunately, sometimes, there are costs to be borne for 
>this.  We need to look at the greater good.

How can that greater good be determined?  Would it be based on IETF 
Consensus?  Would it be left to the discretion of the IASA as that 
body has been given the responsibility for administrative 
issues?  Would it be left to the IETF Chair given that he has been 
chosen by Eligible Voters?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:19:10 +0100

Hi SM,

On 10/04/16 17:55, SM wrote:
>> themselves to attend and to not be harassed?   Does IETF need to plan
>> for not just attendees but attendee's families?
> 
> I'll skip the question.
> 
>> A lot of us have never said anything but people might want to read the
>> section that is in Wikipedia on "White Privilege".
> The pie chart of IETF 95 attendees shows that approximately 35% of the
> attendees were from the United States.  It's striking that the attendees
> who raised issues about IETF meeting venues are usually from the United
> States.  I guess that IETF attendees from the United States are quite
> vocal about unfair deals.

I think that's fair.

I suspect that the physical size of the US also means that some
participants from the US are less used to crossing borders than
e.g. those from smaller countries. Though I'm not sure how that
affects this specific situation.

>> possibly physically assaulted if we are in the wrong area, etc.etc. is
>> for IETF participants.  Not, IETFer's bringing their families - which
>> I will add is not an option for many in the developing world because
>> it is far too expensive.  It is hard enough for the IETFer himself /
>> herself to attend - much less bring their family.
> 
> I don't recall reading a lot of complaints about Hawaii being an exotic
> location or being too far.   

Sorry, I think you're wrong there. I do recall such issues being
raised by US and non-US participants.

> There are usually complaints when an IETF
> meeting is held outside Northern America.  Do people outside the United
> States complain about discrimination, being ignored, etc.?  A quick look
> at [email-masked] does not show a significant volume of issues from the 65%.

I don't think that's fair, but I've not counted. Did you do such
a count? While our US participants may be the best of us when it
comes to complaining they are IMO by no means alone:-)

>> Let's try to work with each other and support each other to bring the
>> collaborative attitudes and openness that underlie the Internet and
>> the openness of the IETF to the developing world.  I think that we are
>> agents of change just as the Internet is an agent of change. 
>> Unfortunately, sometimes, there are costs to be borne for this.  We
>> need to look at the greater good.
> 
> Consensus?  Would it be left to the discretion of the IASA as that body
> has been given the responsibility for administrative issues?  Would it
> be left to the IETF Chair given that he has been chosen by Eligible Voters?

Personally, I don't believe that there is any need for us to
establish IETF consensus on every possible venue selection criterion.

What I think needs to happen is that the IAOC need to decide that
information they process or create will be openly available as the
default, while also identifying the specific kinds of information
that they do need to keep confidential (e.g. hotel contract details).

I think that is how we avoid future situations like this one and how
we could get a sense, well ahead of time, as to the issues that affect
different venues for f2f meetings.

I also think that is a 180-degree change - currently ISTM that the
IAOC operate in default-secret mode, whereas they ought swap around to
be default-public, with identified exceptions. I think if we focus our
energies on getting that change (and checking it's carried out) then I
hope that means we won't need to try and probably fail to reach IETF
consensus on some of these trickier issues.

Cheers,
S.

> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/diversity
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 10:57:45 -0700

> that they do need to keep confidential (e.g. hotel contract details).

That model can and does work for criteria subject to relatively 
objective and relatively consistent analysis.

On matters of political, social and environment concern, the community's 
concerns and reactions are significantly less predictable.

The IAOC (and the Meetings Committee that I participate in) means well 
and attempts to be diligent, but it simply is not certain (or IMO, 
likely) to adequately assess these kinds of community concerns well 
enough.  Last week demonstrated that.

'Transparency' is not a magical incantation.  The specifics of its 
nature and timing determine its efficacy.  In this case, merely 
publishing 'criteria' leaves an entire analysis process to be 
unpredictable; and having everyone inspect that process in real-time -- 
this is called a fishbowl) is not practical.  Having them inspect it 
post hoc is, at best, inefficient.

My own view is that the only way to make sure that a venue is acceptable 
to the community is to publish a list of candidate venues, as early as 
possible, and let the community debate any concerns it might have.

We already have a repertoire of acceptable venues.  IMO, we therefore 
can afford to be quite cavalier about rejecting new venues.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:25:19 +0100

Hi Dave,

(We're maybe wandering from the direct relevance to this list,
but I think many of the right people are subscribed to most of
the possible lists so let's continue...)

> enough.  Last week demonstrated that.

I do agree, both that folks are well meaning and that we're
almost certainly going to have future surprises and issues
to tackle no matter what we do.

> nature and timing determine its efficacy.  

Sure.

> In this case, merely
> publishing 'criteria' 

That was not at all my suggestion. Sorry if I was unclear. See below.

> leaves an entire analysis process to be

That is one necessary aspect of transparency. But if the IAOC
consider that making just this one change is enough to tackle
the longer term issue (i.e. things not specific to IETF-100)
then we are heading for more failures. Personally, I do not
think that making just that one entirely obvious change is
anywhere near sufficient - IMO the IAOC needs to re-examine
all the things it does that are not open.

> can afford to be quite cavalier about rejecting new venues.

I've no strong opinion on that.

But since I apparently was not clear enough before, here's another
attempt to say what, in addition to handling IETF-100 specifics,
I think the IAOC needs to do now:

- Decide to, and announce, that the default position is to be open
  with all data, email etc. That should happen now. (Or should have
  happened already perhaps.)

- Publicly describe the specific kinds of information that are not
  handled according to the default-open policy. I think that is mostly
  hotel-contract specifics and RFPs but maybe there's more. (While
  that could be a lot of work if attempted at a fine granularity, I
  hope there's an easy way to get to an accurate coarse grained
  description.)

I reckon a new mailing list would be best for that 2nd bit as it is
not all specific to hotels, nor to f2f meetings. And it might take
an iteration or two to get right so it's understood and acceptable
to the community.

I'm quite sure the community will want to discuss the above if/when
the IAOC make such statements. I'm equally sure that if the IAOC do
not make some such statements about open-ness then the community
is likely to demand to discuss that inaction.

Lastly, having seen the incremental increases in open-ness that the
IESG has made in the last 5 years, and that not one of those has had
a bad effect that I can recall, despite some fears each time we opened
up more, I think that while some IAOC folks might understandably
be a bit afraid of a default-open policy, I reckon doing so is likely
to just work, if done well.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:49:02 -0700

Stephen,

> the possible lists so let's continue...)

Actually, we're not.  There is a tendency to believe that diversity 
issues are solved by better awareness, or better documentation, or more 
diligent attention, or by enforcing well-intentioned-but-artificial 
membership quotas on committees.  None of those suffice for complex and 
emotional social concerns, of the sort we are currently seeing.

So discussion about the best ways to ensure on-going handling of such 
issues is entirely relevant.

> to tackle no matter what we do.

What I am advocating -- and I'm not the one who put the idea forward -- 
/does/ ensure no further surprises about basic venue legal, 
environmental, political or social acceptability.

>    handled according to the default-open policy.

Stephen, that's an example of magical thinking about transparency. 
Sounds good but isn't practical for most administrative work or most 
administrative environments.  In ignores costs and inefficiencies and 
imposes unrealistic burdens on the folk doing the work.  (By the way, it 
also imposes unrealistic burdens on the community, who have to pay very 
close attention, all the time, to all this new detail being made 
available...)

Further, you are calling for massive operational changes, with only 
modest direct relationship to the problem at hand.  By contrast, the 
suggestion I'm advocating is simple, cheap, safe, and effective for 
exactly the kind of issue at hand.

> to just work, if done well.

I'm in favor of a great deal of openness.  And I concur that the IESG 
steps have been a Good Thing.  But IMO venue administrative work is 
quite different.

At the least, the politics of turning down a venue and/or a host 
involves far more delicacy than is possible with a fishbowl operational 
model.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:14:13 -0700

Hi Stephen,
>affects this specific situation.

Yes.

>raised by US and non-US participants.

Ok.

>comes to complaining they are IMO by no means alone:-)

I complain sometimes. :-)  I did not do a count of the participants 
commenting about those issues.  I'll attempt an unscientific count of 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg97604.html

  Asia             3
  Europe          20
  North America   25
  South America    0

There is a similar pattern in most written discussions with 
participants from the United States in the lead.  I could rationalize 
this by using cultural differences as an explanation.

>establish IETF consensus on every possible venue selection criterion.

The following is from 2004 ( 
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg30826.html ): 
"I think the venue selection process is somehow obscure and not democratic".

>different venues for f2f meetings.

I'll pick something from the above: get a sense well ahead of time of 
the possible issues.

>consensus on some of these trickier issues.

During the MTGVENUE BoF there was a comment about transparency in the 
IAOC.  That issue has been simmering since a long time and there 
hasn't been any significant discussion about it.  The initial 
response by IAOC members to the concern was an embarrassment.  The 
concern was raised by a person who is a member of the IAB.  Should 
that have happened when the IAB already has two members on the IAOC?

Stepping back a little, and going off-topic, the issue of a few years 
ago was diversity in the IESG.  The current issue is diversity in the 
IAOC.  It highlights a cultural insensitivity within the IETF.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 13:59:40 -0700

Hi Stephen, Dave,
At 12:49 10-04-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
>issues are solved by better awareness, or better documentation, or 
>more diligent attention, or by enforcing 
>well-intentioned-but-artificial membership quotas on 
>committees.  None of those suffice for complex and emotional social 
>concerns, of the sort we are currently seeing.
>
>So discussion about the best ways to ensure on-going handling of 
>such issues is entirely relevant.

[snip]

>administrative environments.  In ignores costs and inefficiencies 
>and imposes unrealistic burdens on the folk doing the work.  (By the 
>way, it also imposes unrealistic burdens on the community, who have 
>to pay very close attention, all the time, to all this new detail 
>being made available...)
>

There is indeed a high cost for handling complex social 
concerns.  Does transparency help?  I believe so as everyone can 
judge for himself/herself whether the decision taken favored a group 
of persons or whether the concerns of a minority group were ignored 
during the decision-making.  Another way is to have representivity 
where there are quotas for each group.  Either way, it is a substantive change.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:04:56 -0700

On 4/10/2016 1:59 PM, SM wrote:
> There is indeed a high cost for handling complex social concerns.  Does
> transparency help?  I believe so as everyone can judge for
> himself/herself whether the decision taken favored a group of persons or
> whether the concerns of a minority group were ignored during the
> decision-making.  Another way is to have representivity where there are
> quotas for each group.  Either way, it is a substantive change.

SM,

Hi.

Again, the specific application of 'transparency' is extremely 
important, if the operation is to be practical and the results useful.

The same applies to enforced diversity.

Some transparency is easy and useful.  Quite a bit is neither, but it 
makes up for it by also crippling the operation...

And enforced diversity for small groups is usually not practical. It 
winds up creating representation for a tiny number of special interests 
and continues to ignore many others.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 22:51:05 +0100

Dave,

I think you and I just disagree about the requirement for the IAOC
(not just f2f arrangements folks) to reform itself or be reformed.
That, or else I'm just not explaining myself at all well, presumably
leading you to your clearly dismissive reference to magical thinking.

In contrast, I think the current fiasco is just one in an ongoing
sequence of mostly minor screw-ups by well meaning folks, all or
almost all of which would likely have been easier to handle or
less likely to happen if the IAOC and it's subcommittees made much
better use of what is the IETF's standard modus operandi: open-ness.

And before you again mis-characterise me as implying that every
detail of every hotel contract be open, that is clearly not what I
am proposing. If you take that to be my proposal either the writer
or the reader or both are at significant fault.

S.

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:04:28 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 14:04 10-04-2016, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Some transparency is easy and useful.  Quite a bit is neither, but 
>it makes up for it by also crippling the operation...
>
>winds up creating representation for a tiny number of special 
>interests and continues to ignore many others.

As it is now, I have to take the word of the members of the IAOC that 
they are doing a terrific job and that nothing should be changed as 
the operation is practical and the results useful.  I don't see any 
accountability in that.

The IETF will end up with enforced diversity if it does nothing.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:32:24 +0100

Hiya,

On 10/04/16 21:14, SM wrote:
> 
> I complain sometimes. :-)  

Heh - maybe if we include skillful obliqueness and "I'm not quite sure
if this is a complaint or not" as a category you'd win a category
prize:-)

> I did not do a count of the participants

Those numbers don't convince me that IETF complaining is a US-specific
thing, for various reasons, including the date-range, topics in-play,
and lack of counts per thread to name just a few. There may be such a
case to be made, but so far we don't have good evidence for it I think.

I'm also not convinced that arguing such a case is really productive.
I think if we want to name a subset of IETF participants as being more
or less culpable for some bad thing, then we really should base that on
better numbers, if those actually exist. Or else, we shouldn't make the
claim, which I think is usually better.

Cheers,
S.

PS: As in many things, the US population includes sets of people who
embody both the best and the worst on these topics - I reckon that's
mainly characteristic of their state being the 20th century's behemoth
and has not much deeper significance.

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:04:59 +0530

> affects this specific situation.

I think India and China are quite big too both in terms of area
and significantly bigger in terms of people. However we do not see
participants from these countries complaining incessantly about minor
infractions and (sadly) sometimes even significant discrimination.

I think participating in the IETF and improving the Intenet is a
privilege a lot of
IETF participants (especially from the US) take for granted.

If the IETF is serious about being more inclusive, I would suggest just
one problem to solve which affect a lot of participants from
non-US/European countries and that is visa.

The IETF has done a very lousy job of helping participants get visa
(such as advisories or getting Visa letters). There is a lot of lip service paid
to this but no action on the ground. I think the recent meeting is a
good example of this mess.

> comes to complaining they are IMO by no means alone:-)

I would love to see this argument backed by data. I am fairly sure the
list is quite skewed.

> consensus on some of these trickier issues.

A said and done, there is a lot more scope for the IAOC to be transparent.
The IAOC does a tough job but it does not behoove well for the IETF and
IAOC to be so secretive for possible venues. If nothing else, a possible list
of venues under consideration would definitely be a good start and would
help to avoid the fiasco we saw with Singapore. I think the community can
help the IAOC in such issues and avoid it being blind-sided.

I think "Trust us we are doing the right thing" argument has run it's course.

Thanks
Vinayak

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:10:40 +0530

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> That model can and does work for criteria subject to relatively objective
> and relatively consistent analysis.
>
> The IAOC (and the Meetings Committee that I participate in) means well and
> attempts to be diligent, but it simply is not certain (or IMO, likely) to
> adequately assess these kinds of community concerns well enough.  Last week
> demonstrated that.

+100

> 'Transparency' is not a magical incantation.  The specifics of its nature
> and timing determine its efficacy.  In this case, merely publishing
> 'criteria' leaves an entire analysis process to be unpredictable; and having
> everyone inspect that process in real-time -- this is called a fishbowl) is
> not practical.  Having them inspect it post hoc is, at best, inefficient.
>
> My own view is that the only way to make sure that a venue is acceptable to
> the community is to publish a list of candidate venues, as early as

+100

> We already have a repertoire of acceptable venues.  IMO, we therefore can
> afford to be quite cavalier about rejecting new venues.

I am not so sure about being cavalier about rejecting new venues. Especially
since the US internet population is now dwarfed by other countries and
regions like
LATAM, China and India. The meeting venues should reflect that atleast fairly
(if not in representative fashion).

Thanks
Vinayak

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:25:55 +0530

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 1:44 AM, SM <[email-masked]> wrote:
> During the MTGVENUE BoF there was a comment about transparency in the IAOC.
> That issue has been simmering since a long time and there hasn't been any
> significant discussion about it.  The initial response by IAOC members to
> the concern was an embarrassment.  The concern was raised by a person who is
> a member of the IAB.  Should that have happened when the IAB already has two
> members on the IAOC?
>
> Stepping back a little, and going off-topic, the issue of a few years ago
> was diversity in the IESG.  The current issue is diversity in the IAOC.  It
> highlights a cultural insensitivity within the IETF.

+100

I have said this elsewhere on this thread but visa issues which
affect a lot of participants from non-US/Non-EU countries do
not make it  on the radar.

Probably because participants from these countries do not complain
loudly enough. I am guilty of this too but we just accept it as part of
the package. So we have lots of people complaining vainly about
AC temperature in Hotels but not issues which actually prevent
people from coming to the IETF.

Please talk to some of the ISOC fellows and participants from other
countries from Asia, LATAM and Africa about the amount of
documentation needed for applying for visa and/or the hurdles they
face to receive funding.

cc-ing Fernando on this thread from LATAM (Argentina) who has
also raised these concerns about funding.

I find it laughable and disingenuous that people from the developed
world talk about the cost of visiting different countries and time taken
to travel but at the same time ask "Where is the participation from
these developing countries ? We should go to countries from where
there is a lot of participation"

-- Vinayak

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 00:30:42 +0000 (UTC)

+100

Guys, I want to put together some thoughts (for whatever they are worth) about what IMHO is really going on.  The venue issue is the canary in the coal mine that is highlighting some fundamental transitions that are taking place in the world.  The IETF is not immune from the changes that it itself has helped to create: that is the Internet and the power shifts that are taking place as a result.

Now, again IMHO, we can do this the hard way (try to really understand the problem, really listen to each viewpoint & try to understand each other's reality) or we can do it the harder way (ignore the fundamental problem, focus on details, and be non-transparent).

Naturally, once the "harder" way does not work, we will be back to the first.

When I was in my mid-twenties, I spent two of the happiest years of my life as a Peace Corps volunteer living at the edge of the bush in West Africa under a military dictatorship, with no free speech, no running water, and intermittent electricity.   The reason the time was happy was because of the generosity, warmth and kindness of the people who welcomed a stranger into their lives.

The reality of many parts of the world is very unfamiliar to people in the western world, and seems even "wrong".  IMHO, this is a part of what we are seeing with the whole "Singapore" issue.   People at the IETF have talked about wanting "diversity" for quite a while.  Well, it is coming quickly.  The reality of it demands changes and flexibility from all.

I feel that the IETF with its tradition of transparency and collaboration is uniquely equipped to handle this challenge.  If it can't work here, it can't work anywhere.  And, I think it can work at the IETF.  But the "how" may require some innovation in how we go about this.

I will write my thoughts up (again, if they can be of any help to the community).  But, I just got home & I am brain dead & exhausted.  So, after wrapping up a few other email thread, I am going on radio silence for a week or so.

Nalini

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:08:45 -0700

> (if not in representative fashion).

Point taken.  I was, perhaps, being a bit too cavalier about our being 
cavalier...

I'll suggest a refinement:  For the regions that we've been visiting 
regularly over the years, we already have a repertoire of acceptable 
venues.  For these, we can readily reject a new venue, if there is 
significant community objection to going there.  (That's what I /meant/ 
about being cavalier.)

When the goal is to visit a new region and/or make a new region part of 
the regular circuit, choices are more complicated and need to be made 
more cautiously.

FWIW, I think that early disclosure of candidate cities is useful in 
both cases.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:58:39 -0700

Hi Stephen,
>if this is a complaint or not" as a category you'd win a category

Ok. :-)

>case to be made, but so far we don't have good evidence for it I think.

I agree that the dataset is not a good example.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:11:22 -0700

> (not just f2f arrangements folks) to reform itself or be reformed.

There are always folk putting forward that view.  Including now, of 
course.  And there are obvious ways to pursue such views, by specifying 
details and gather community consensus.  On the average, problem solving 
at such a basic level is aided by very clear specification of the 
problems being solved.  Anyhow, perhaps you can achieve a critical mass 
of community consensus for that.

More importantly there is nothing about that effort that needs to be in 
the critical path of responding directly to the very specific problem 
that surfaced last week.  And putting it into the critical path almost 
certainly means that responding to that specific problem will be delayed.

> leading you to your clearly dismissive reference to magical thinking.

My dismissal of your brief proposal was far more specific than just 
using that label.  Your proposal is of a type that often comes up when 
decision-making is delegated and anyone in the community is dissatisfied 
with how things are operating.  And I responded rather specifically 
about the problems with the approach.  Fishbowl operation can have its 
uses, but it also can have severe drawbacks.

By way of a small and frankly classic example, yes, having the IESG call 
be public is quite nice.  But the problem is that IESG members still 
have private conversations.  Since the requirement is for the IESG to be 
open, do  we need to prohibit those conversations being private?

> better use of what is the IETF's standard modus operandi: open-ness.

Oh.  Ok.  It would be helpful to see a compendium of these screw-ups, in 
order to be able to attempt to analyze them.  Openness about problems 
begins by being clear about what they are.

> or the reader or both are at significant fault.

Actually I did not think, say, or imply anything like that.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Vinayak Hegde <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:51:02 +0530

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:
> order to be able to attempt to analyze them.  Openness about problems begins
> by being clear about what they are.

+1 on that. Dave to be fair, Fred did share an analysis how past venues did
against a set of criteria that we have now in the mtgvenue draft.

Thanks
Vinayak

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:29:21 -0700

Hi Nalini,
At 17:30 10-04-2016, [email-masked] wrote:
>Guys, I want to put together some thoughts (for whatever they are 
>worth) about what IMHO is really going on.  The venue issue is the 
>canary in the coal mine that is highlighting some fundamental 
>transitions that are taking place in the world.  The IETF is not immune

Yes.

>  from the changes that it itself has helped to create: that is the 
> Internet and the power shifts that are taking place as a result.

That's what is happening.

>Now, again IMHO, we can do this the hard way (try to really 
>understand the problem, really listen to each viewpoint & try to 
>understand each other's reality) or we can do it the harder way 
>(ignore the fundamental problem, focus on details, and be non-transparent).
>

:-)

>The reality of many parts of the world is very unfamiliar to people 
>in the western world, and seems even "wrong".  IMHO, this is a part 
>of what we are seeing with the whole "Singapore" issue.   People at 
>the IETF have talked about wanting "diversity" for quite a 
>while.  Well, it is coming quickly.  The reality of it demands 
>changes and flexibility from all.

The talk started in March 2013.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:33:42 +0100

> certainly means that responding to that specific problem will be delayed.

I agree with that.

If the IAOC were taking the path I'd like to see 'em take, they'd
just announce that they plan to move to default-open with a list of
exceptions to be published/discussed after they're done sorting out
the issues related to IETF-100. I would hope that ought not affect
their handling of IETF-100. If they even said that they planned to
revisit their level of open-ness more generally after sorting out
IETF-100, that'd help.

At no time did I make any statement about critical paths, but it is
fair to ask about that. It seems to be not fair to assert that I was
"putting it into the critical path" as you've done, but then again
perhaps part of the magical thinking you detected was me thinking
things I'd not said:-)

S.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 07:48:59 +0100

> Naturally, once the "harder" way does not work, we will be back to

Nicely put and I agree with you.

As Dave points out, the IAOC do need to sort out IETF-100 in the
meantime, so for now perhaps the immediate best they can do is to
recognise they are on the hard and not harder path.

S.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 21:28:17 -0500

This may sound like I'm arguing with you, but I'm agreeing on your
meta-issue.

> good example of this mess.

I worked at Huawei from 2005 to 2015 (so, from IETF 63 to IETF 93).

I had co-workers who requested US visas for IETF 65 in Dallas (March 2006),
and got their visas just in time for IETF 67 in San Diego (November 2006),
or in some cases, just in time for IETF 69 in Chicago (July 2007).

Chinese folk were hardly the only IETFers affected, but those were the ones
I heard about most often, because I worked with a lot of Chinese folk who
were affected.

Yeah, we had to complain, and complain loudly, but if you check out
http://www.ietf.org/meeting/proceedings.html, you'll see a lot more IETF
meetings in Canada, especially during the worst times. There would likely
have been even more meetings in Canada, except for hosts who wanted IETF
meetings in specific places in the US (which is fair, because those
specific places were easier for them to support).

The Secretariat started opening registration earlier, so people could
register and request visa letters earlier. I don't know if it ever
happened, but there was talk about letting people register for more than
one meeting, so they could request a visa letter for IETF N+1 before IETF N
had even happened.

When three Nomcom members were delayed getting visas for Honolulu, my
understanding is that IETF/ISOC folk were making personal calls to the US
State Department to see what could be done to expedite that.

I can't judge effectiveness, and I don't know what could have been done,
that wasn't done, but what I saw for ten years, was a lot of "action on the
ground".

Now, if you read what I've said so far, you'll notice that even working for
a large multinational that routinely sends dozens of participants who
require visas to IETF meetings, and spending five years on the IAB and
IESG, I don't know very much about the state of play here. I've got a lot
of "I heard"s, and a lot of "I don't know X, but"s.

So, if your meta-issue is that more transparency would be awesome, I'd
agree wholeheartedly! Because one of the side effects of translucence, or
even opacity, is that people work their asses off, and most of us never
hear about it, even if we would benefit by knowing about what they had done.

And having spent a fair amount of time just last week benefitting from that
hard work, I'd love for all of us to know more about what's going on.

Spencer

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:08:44 -0700

Hi Spencer, Vinayak,
At 19:28 11-04-2016, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>This may sound like I'm arguing with you, but I'm agreeing on your meta-issue.

[snip]

>Now, if you read what I've said so far, you'll notice that even 
>working for a large multinational that routinely sends dozens of 
>participants who require visas to IETF meetings, and spending five 
>years on the IAB and IESG, I don't know very much about the state of 
>play here. I've got a lot of "I heard"s, and a lot of "I don't know X, but"s.
>
>So, if your meta-issue is that more transparency would be awesome, 
>I'd agree wholeheartedly! Because one of the side effects of 
>translucence, or even opacity, is that people work their asses off, 
>and most of us never hear about it, even if we would benefit by 
>knowing about what they had done.

Would I believe a "I heard" or "I don't know X but"?  I might do so 
the first time.  As I experience the problem again and again I might 
wonder whether the "good people" understand the problem I am 
facing.  When I see IETF attendees complaining about a room 
temperature problem I wonder whether that is what the IETF Community 
considers as the priority.

I read the minutes of proceedings of the last plenary.  There was the 
following comment: "An important venue selection principle is that it 
is inclusive".  I don't see that in the IAOC slides (2013) about 
venue selection.  Do I need to attend an IETF meeting to know about 
that principle?  Is that transparency?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 05:14:31 -0700

On 4/11/2016 7:28 PM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> meetings in Canada, especially during the worst times. There would
> likely have been even more meetings in Canada, except for hosts who
> wanted IETF meetings in specific places in the US (which is fair,
> because those specific places were easier for them to support).

Is it fair?

If we know of a pattern of problems with getting participants to be able 
to attend, shouldn't that be more important than host convenience (as 
long as we have the choice of an alternate venue)?  The goal of a 
meeting is to get work done.  Choosing a venue that makes it difficult 
for participants to attends works against that basic goal.

> one meeting, so they could request a visa letter for IETF N+1 before
> IETF N had even happened.
>
> understanding is that IETF/ISOC folk were making personal calls to the
> US State Department to see what could be done to expedite that.

Every country carries some kinds of problems, given the diversity of 
IETF attendance.  But some countries are notably more problematic.

Is it reasonable to hold our meetings in places that require this sort 
of special action?  If so, why?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 09:34:09 -0500

Hi, Dave,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> wrote:

> to attend, shouldn't that be more important than host convenience (as long
> as we have the choice of an alternate venue)?  The goal of a meeting is to
> get work done.  Choosing a venue that makes it difficult for participants
> to attends works against that basic goal.

I'd say that if our deal with hosts is that they are giving us hundreds of
thousands of dollars to host a meeting, and they can do that without
spending even more money on stuff that's hard in one location, and easier
in another, we can't be surprised that they want to do it in the easy
location.

If that doesn't work for us, we should tell them, and go from there. But
that's up to us.

Speaking only as a meeting attendee, on this one, of course.

> Every country carries some kinds of problems, given the diversity of IETF
> attendance.  But some countries are notably more problematic.
>
> Is it reasonable to hold our meetings in places that require this sort of
> special action?  If so, why?

I suspect that there are other special actions taken when we meet in other
places, that haven't gone through episodes of difficulty for Chinese
attendees - but honestly, that's what I know most about, from spending ten
years at Huawei, especially early on (say, 2005 to 2008), so I don't know
what else has been required for other people in other places.

I can't comment on "reasonable".

Spencer

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 07:36:07 -0700

On 4/12/2016 7:34 AM, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
> I'd say that if our deal with hosts is that they are giving us hundreds
> of thousands of dollars to host a meeting, and they can do that without
> spending even more money on stuff that's hard in one location, and
> easier in another, we can't be surprised that they want to do it in the
> easy location.
>

The issue isn't what hosts prefer.  I issue is the IETF making choices 
that benefit hosts, to the detriment of participant attendance.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:17:42 -0500

> that benefit hosts, to the detriment of participant attendance.

Emphasizing that I've never been on IAOC, or on the meeting planning
subcommittee of the IAOC, and was only peripherally involved in internal
discussions about meetings Huawei did and did not host, other people can
comment on whether the right tradeoffs were made (on any particular
meeting, or series of meetings), but I don't have enough information about
what other options were available to comment further.

Spencer

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:21:58 +0100

On 12/04/16 21:17, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:
>  I don't have enough information about

Isn't that a part of the problem that the IAOC constantly face
and cause? The community doesn't have enough information about
what the IAOC is doing.

S.

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:25:15 -0500

Hi, Stephen,

> and cause? The community doesn't have enough information about

I agreed with that, upthread, but, yeah.

Spencer

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:15:55 +0000 (UTC)

>raised by US and non-US participants.

 Actually, I was talking about complaining about pervasive racism not about the venue being too far or whatever.   Just to clarify.

Nalini

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:57:42 -0700

Meant to respond to this back when it was posted, but there is a basic 
point that still is worth pursuing...

> all the things it does that are not open.

I specified a single, narrow issue and offered a specific approach that 
responds to it.  My personal view is that with respect to the concern 
about whether a city is acceptable for an IETF meeting, the approach is 
sufficient.

No one has suggested that this one action resolves larger concerns about 
community insight into IAOC activities.  No one, that is, until you 
introduced it here, as a strawman.

My understanding is that the IAOC is, in fact, looking at the larger 
issues more broadly.

My own view is that the larger issues should be decoupled from the basic 
question of assessing whether a city is acceptable, first because the 
latter has become a more immediate issue, second because (IMO) it is 
relatively simple to resolve, and third because the larger issues are 
significantly more complicated to resolve well.

>    happened already perhaps.)

As you have phrased it, in my view, that's an entirely irresponsible 
starting point, given the nature of the administrative work the IAOC does.

Having a goal of sharing as much as is reasonable certainly makes sense. 
  But the downsides of disclosing the wrong information or disclosing 
information at the wrong time are too high to have a 'default open' 
model be practical.  This is a topic that requires some nuance and 
simplistic rules don't suit it.  However the pressure to be more open is 
good and I hope the dialogue about it continues.

> to just work, if done well.

If the work covered the same range of sensitivities, then yes, using the 
same model would make sense.  Since it doesn't, it doesn't.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker