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

kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com Wed, 25 May 2016 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED5C12DE3E for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IoAdxk5hu_iy for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22d.google.com (mail-pa0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F044812DE3F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pa0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id fy7so6942791pac.2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FTt//Z/uF/LdtANoBpRGnYWW8mFXUGIdQaZdr6+P58k=; b=ZeoS64Lhbr1z51L/er/ULKX67WjYX7+iJD9hTUbl+Xcf3flLtWw/XBaSU0JVfkM0Mc SehPvzMpmSfHDMMpsaAJphr91u8PYmd3jRwrjS2boGs0hNd7kXrak6lR+qf+B4JK2tlW FPadHLGJ3BzdhLb92k2VSoTaQpjCKEUcVcHpwemw8aM50RDlW8dyA4YcgyIWlumIBRnM BdcCFvG/MXvnhGn/76D3kOHS/rYTHAyWJfD8fevjEP0J82FhonXwT6VdpyjVgulvUrky EQVjGfCDnGwAH0fzIq3Yv5byQHhobiq5W1O3TH7xVb255roMlUKpTh1YbuTWdXd2gnyu v3qw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FTt//Z/uF/LdtANoBpRGnYWW8mFXUGIdQaZdr6+P58k=; b=jnAxc+QJ048JNE7RoW2zQ1MZmPbwnIWVPzmlBDL5YESoiETY5k2Mbp0pZXxZlPd5tS 40/VoRO06RqWEi6mEJjcG7p4cML6lMR6VpcADtkKYNLdo8sXURVLM4hmGzsPG68Wtozy wPaLkKliy4iSsBo0egI4aS2Tq5FCYSTa2lB/a3HfaAaiMM99HMEh922OPZCVcN8nlhEz 0yJZUijlARM+PI+ZCIG98OzcI5AFFCzezRXSvdwYCjL7KNzIlg0QfPcPZRuF32gJS5/+ KZKOLHwEgBHJGHAyyet6+gkpl9VrcAvvxG2Muu1Q6Mw061OWc5PC/IS+hFsXbF+wYuvP AW3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIL3ktRjHqMPIJnSrlTzWzI+1IruQFtUH6WcuPGak+GglGveDbZrm3OMWNwWL4rkg==
X-Received: by 10.55.48.75 with SMTP id w72mr6307412qkw.168.1464220460357; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (209-6-124-204.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com. [209.6.124.204]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w56sm302811qtw.29.2016.05.25.16.54.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 25 May 2016 16:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <EE9DC85F-E902-4C4D-B901-4496C26D2B49@consulintel.es>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 19:54:17 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4D3A8726-2BD7-43B0-B8F6-1116F0CDD4F7@gmail.com>
References: <D3662363.190A96%jon.peterson@neustar.biz> <CABcZeBMPAFdLwZTr7TCJC-tZ+X=CKGzQ7Jp0zqDO86PdPn6YvQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D82EA4F-1275-436C-8030-1E799F5D7F59@consulintel.es> <CABcZeBOCtk6JK_3w2_L87oyze+dfgy7fFyU7QrGmGgEtta1oZA@mail.gmail.com> <1CA535AB-CAC4-49CB-B094-AAA7FE3119FB@consulintel.es> <2b01eb8f-d319-7d20-0f84-9a774f9e0e44@nostrum.com> <C01AE269-3168-4B6A-B8D8-D97230288302@gmail.com> <8161273d-97c2-2757-5f0c-6146d0b297aa@nostrum.com> <E51DA1A2-AB3E-42F7-BC0A-308BE6B58580@gmail.com> <2270ea7c-cd6d-c3d5-e768-6d1f0ae15605@nostrum.com> <216D2B11-5E07-4DBE-BCC4-0A8ABCCB15B7@gmail.com> <cf9ad015-ef7d-6e11-44e8-6a0fb5a78b91@gmail.com> <EBBFC64A-C730-47D8-8F66-E4C7773A0344@gmail.com> <D5E06CF1-9C2D-41BE-8635-1F73321986EC@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rfvYrW5TDCzdUoFeeQFnsDejWFn7jH+20xnJ4QHEsJ=2g@mail.gmail.com> <F2144741-4441-4F6E-B91E-6AEB52BCA7CF@consulintel.es> <CAG4d1rdC2SBC6F4-8MJGsJBt7kbJ+kRA5MKC5ZVUyhjCUJLkCg@mail.gmail.com> <72db82ac-e272-f269-f15e-0bcde9a1582e@gmail.com> <D3416945-1079-4994-B55C-2AD7913842B6@iii.ca> <EE9DC85F-E902-4C4D-B901-4496C26D2B49@consulintel.es>
To: "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/2Og-R2ch7FBbe4_Cz-Eac1vMa4M>
Cc: "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 23:54:23 -0000


Sent from my iPhone

> On May 25, 2016, at 6:29 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> wrote:
> 
> That was not the point. Let me explain again:
> 
> Your work requires you go to a given place for a business meeting. That place will not allow you to go with your family because sexual discrimination. You can’t refuse to go to that place because you only want to go there if you can bring your family.
> 
> You still can go there and fulfil your job according to the work laws in your country, even if you don't bring your family. Right?
> 
I agree with Cullen. My employer would also support an employee not going in that circumstance.  They take diversity seriously and continue to work to improve it.  We have a chief diversity officer and every employee has to have something on their annual review about how they helped with diversity.  

I was booked to go to BA and my employer was fine with me canceling the trip because my son was a bit too young, a family related reason as I could not go without him for a week with breastfeeding.  So no, I couldn't still go.

I'm sure they Would support someone who felt it wasn't possible for them to travel safely with their family for fear of discrimination as well.  If there is some reason why the family needed to accompany them, there wouldn't be an issue.  

Remote access is an option and I used that for BA.

Kathleen 

> Saludos,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
> Responder a: <fluffy@iii.ca>
> Fecha: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016, 22:56
> Para: <ietf@ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
> 
>> 
>>> On May 24, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 5/24/16 2:20 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>>> I said this already a few messages ago. If instead of the IETF is a
>>>> business meeting that your boss tell you need to go (at least in my
>>>> country, and here comes what you said about different cultures), you
>>>> will have no choice: a) Go there b) You’re fired, maybe unless a
>>>> colleague can make it for you and your boss accept it But
>>>> definitively, you will not be able to argue in front of a court to
>>>> defend your job that you can’t go there because your family need to
>>>> go there with you and that country don’t allow it.
>>> 
>>> Allow me to suggest that you know no such thing, and that
>>> you're presenting a strawman argument that may, in fact,
>>> be completely false.  US companies tend to come down on the
>>> side of supporting diversity and rejecting bigotry - take
>>> a look at the response to North Carolina's HB2.
>> 
>> My employer has in their code of business conduct strong support for exactly what Melinda is saying. I do not believe anyone at my employer would be fired for being unwilling to put themselves in a position of sexual discrimination. My experience is that most large international companies have similar policies. 
>> 
>>> 
>>> It's fine to make conjectures, but please couch it in
>>> terms of "I think this is what would happen."  I believe
>>> that in this case you'd be incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Melinda
> 
> 
>