Re: Concerns about Singapore

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 07 April 2016 17:12 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 5049C12D0FE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 K07-xcnmePv1 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 6CC1A12D1B8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-a0da.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a0da.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.160.218]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u37HC1nu071074 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:12:03 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <570694E1.90509@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:12:01 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0D914666-C3D4-4CCE-AD5E-4E5B34EA1A73@piuha.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3e3yrxL_Rgo3HeYC_29PflVLEdA>
Cc: IETF <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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:12:07 -0000

On 4/7/16 12:31, Jari Arkko wrote:
> In addition, the longer term process about explicit documentation of community’s wishes regarding the meetings selection process and requirements is already in progress. The MTGVENUE BOF will be meeting today Thursday at 16:20 in Pacifico A. Everybody, please contribute to that.

Indeed, venue selection appears to be something people care deeply 
about, for a variety of reasons. I will point out that the current draft 
being discussed later today 
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-mtgvenue-iaoc-venue-selection-process-01) 
does squarely address the issue under discussion in section 3.1, under 
the section marked "Inclusiveness." Selection of venues that exclude 
participation based on sexual orientation is explicitly proscribed by 
name in the existing proposal.

/a