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

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 24/05/16 22:48, Alia Atlas wrote:
> As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting
> - not a pattern.  All the information from folks on the ground indicates
> that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite
> critical if it did become an issue.

That about sums it up for me too.

Purely related to IETF-100:

If there're indications that practical problems could occur
with a non-negligible probability, I'd be for moving the meeting.

If we find good evidence that even in cases folks are concerned
about (e.g. hospitalisation) there have been cases of male couples
not having issues with that, then I'd be fine with keeping IETF-100
in Singapore.

I'd be surprised if we could get good evidence for either of the
above. If we can, great, but I'd not count on it. At this point
I think anecdote or absence of evidence isn't likely to be very
useful in terms of convincing folks.

That leaves me figuring that I'm ok to trust the IAOC to make
the best call they can on this one. I hope they do so in as open
a manner as possible. If they choose to not move the meeting, and
on the basis of what I know so far, I'd likely go (assuming I have
funding at that point). The same is true if they do move it.

I do think that this discussion has shown convincingly that we
ought in future consider additional aspects of inclusiveness,
including family accompaniment, as good reasons have been offered
for that. (That's in addition to the other issues about general
transparency etc.)

S.