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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Tue, 24 May 2016 21:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5079012D51A for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wcgygkTYMOum for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:26:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C65D12B056 for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 14:26:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:27 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000546706.msg for <>; Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:26 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:26 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 23:26:22 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 24 May 2016 21:26:31 -0000

Hi Alia,

The fact that we are getting up to this debate, means that the IAOC is taking in consideration the issue. Otherwise, the immediate response will have been “sorry, we sympathize with your family issue, but at no means can that situation be taken in consideration for even a simple study to move the meeting somewhere else”. I may be wrong, of course, but is what it looks like.

Nothing personal, believe me, but I must say that you don’t know at all if this affects me or not, you don’t know my personal/familiar circumstances and if doing the meeting in Singapore or an alternative place is better for me and my circumstances. I just take it from another principle. I’m there to work and either I go to the meeting for work (and prioritize the work), or if I’ve a familiar problem and is in clash with my work, tell my employer and find an alternative solution instead of going there. What I can’t definitively do is to ask for a venue reconsideration, unless the problem affecting me is also affecting a big proportion of the rest of the attendees.

I fully respect inclusion and minorities. I don’t like democracy in the sense that majority always win. Isn’t like that, but when we have a new fact in the table, we should consider it for the future, and balance it with the rest of the possible considerations from every other minority, and again, put on top the maximum priority of the reason for the meetings: Getting the work done for as much people as we can.

Reading other emails from Ted, he already had a few examples, that reflect what I’ve in mind, so I’m not going to repeat them.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Alia Atlas <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 21:12
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored into the IAOC venue-selection.
>It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect you.
>In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal guardianship & medical concerns in a
>country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other countries.   There can certainly be personal 
>reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require others' judgement as to whether those
>reasons are "deserving" enough.
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> wrote:
>+1  to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me personally at any time.
>Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
>-----Mensaje original-----
>De: ietf <> en nombre de Yoav Nir <>
>Responder a: <>
>Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
>Para: Melinda Shore <>
>CC: <>
>Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
>>> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <> wrote:
>>> On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>>> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t
>>>> think the ability to bring families along should be an important
>>>> consideration.
>>> 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'd personally
>>> be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
>>> specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
>>> to same-sex partners.
>>I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it.