Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Hm, okay, thanks for walking me through that.

I think the bottom line is that for people who find IETF barely affordable,
the concern about being able to bring family along is a bit of a first
world problem.   I don't really buy the idea that the IETF shouldn't do
anything to accommodate those people who are able to bring family along, if
doing so is easy, but it would be absurd for that to be a stronger
motivating factor in choosing venues than the ability of likely attendees
to get visas, for example.

ISTM that the number of people meaningfully negatively affected by bringing
IETF to Singapore is likely quite a bit smaller than the number of people
positively affected by bringing IETF to Singapore.   Has anybody done that
comparison?

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On 5/24/16 11:41 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> If we are going to bring breastfeeding into this, which seems
>> reasonable, it's worth asking if someone can actually construct a
>> situation in which the breastfeeding mother would be present with the
>> baby, but the local government would not recognize _her_ parental
>> rights.
>>
>
> We looped down a side-road.  Apparently there's some feeling
> that the way to solve the problem with familial rights in same-
> sex families not being recognized in Singapore is to simply
> eliminate the companion program (a very Kim Davis solution).
> I said I don't like the companion program because I think it
> tends to over-emphasize the role of meetings in our processes.
> Alia answered with a concrete example of why the companion program
> is useful and should be continued.  I don't think anybody
> was arguing that there's a legal issue related to parental
> rights around breastfeeding (although I understand that
> there's a ton of legal issues, and local variability in
> those legal issues, around public breastfeeding).
>
> Melinda
>
>
>