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

Michael Richardson <> Wed, 25 May 2016 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59B5D12D9AF for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:32:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 04DqFeY64iDa for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:32:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 69A5412DD1B for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 13:32:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04417203B2 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693C7638BF for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 16:32:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> < >
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6+dev; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 16:32:50 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 20:32:54 -0000

Melinda Shore <> wrote:
    > I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides a companion
    > program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel should be equally
    > accessible to all families.

I think we need to think less about the companion program about being about
"vacations" for the family.  I think we should rather think about if we are
serious about supporting/encouraging young people with young families that we
need to recognize that bring the family is sometimes the right decision.

I think that you are saying this above without being explicit enough.

I tried to be gender and orientation neutral above, but let me say it again.
MEN have been historically been at liberty to go on business trips leaving their
WIVES at home with young children.  Such was life at the time.
Women with small children were forced to give up career opportunities.

If we are serious about having more gender and age diversity at the IETF we
have to recognize that bringing the infant and the supporting cast needs to
be supported.   So, when you write, "all families", I take this to mean all of:
   1) young male IETFer with mother+child in tow
   2) young female IETFer with father+child in tow
   3) young male IETFer with co-father+child in tow
   4) young female IETFer with co-mother+child in tow

Try crossing a border or going through an airport with a small child
as a single man.   Particularly if the child doesn't "look" like you
(because, genetically, the child isn't).

This is the kind of concern that I think people have.

Michael Richardson <>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-