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

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Mon, 23 May 2016 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 0517312D986 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, 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 I04CpwaearFe for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com (mail-vk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]) (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 480F312D985 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id y2so156502127vka.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9tlTgbXwPhtjDpGLZC1gWW9HfZnFpenJmL9kctY2Xyk=; b=DtmNJP2USWgncFkHKxBAqhN/JWPC2vSqJ5AvfHcyJczihJm6EKWspgaLJssr1VP37V 32Pe44M9r5dYb3nGMsx4aiLjyRTSUTtlVTk2YXLbKNsr/5Rsnvdf9AWH7wYTQKekGWnX tcJAtDK+rvNBgcXsHfKAYcfQcrcajVmKHwRj10F8sucyt0TFiaXV3PbbnP6ISMQcmk96 6oYXDUE0aTZemfIpua56e7hH7PKsJ2AUgXnBao6Fq4z6RRZ8eyCFs7i1XkjxPiG8NgnZ BYKEucQc/dKM2caSvVXFU2CO+Dp/mX9UexfW89cUyFFPLoNmhC023x8Vv7cMN9fWVbR5 7ZZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9tlTgbXwPhtjDpGLZC1gWW9HfZnFpenJmL9kctY2Xyk=; b=bm3PKz3viD8hcYh5PZ6fcg2m3DEQ4YU/tW5c0PONj2KpvzTqT5eCJyjqKlkWDRRcua zBJRZ18jCRbePFpWtejP9AudhNHfnzUvk9Ezm1RV5sIgo/Z9+/lXnAu7Ydp3QMl6bw+E bLsjW7cxHumi7nj/w+ZP02cMuS2NmGyZ8kTHleE2oEteFY203sRKM+boqKpwCNKHtWR6 K/MFq4POyj+vmjL4HKYvGV14kR8BgXvUKk4jikUNIuFyjv3qisb3HamL2MhsRgMCjbsa Rzmo4uPN3GGhSonCJumr17HX9p/PRmDHwdoHuTXt6aB0LeBVzjTGZHbXNl4p3Xn/ivp9 Ec/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUweFk+voVoLj4NWPSYcQrB4R0GcZ1N3P3nxZIzVCyctajnRjQkAPrd36kwJUymzyDI1x/bHxYg121tcA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.31.3.223 with SMTP id f92mr8583147vki.20.1464017353288; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.176.2.232 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <193234674.293864.1463862091242.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20160517181436.24852.58610.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3945cc1f-3e99-0fcb-e983-ed2e46fa871c@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMAWFQDrT6WqTGz=6LcDiBkg+iuLEuSzeSqfZA4-J-tvZg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMGpKFiA78iQDFa5xaM0r0q_3LfLO_JKxaWJ9CBUTeaLg@mail.gmail.com> <C5B9F952-FEFC-4B73-9AC6-E050F59A74CB@consulintel.es> <5740A90E.2030200@gmail.com> <34CC7DDE-3341-4BF8-8238-B32176EDC72A@consulintel.es> <193234674.293864.1463862091242.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:29:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcfjvx-_dbKFKwK9mVYeRcpB5HLkz444XOD1TYFpEJignQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/IjEvYF5rFijZBeJ9tME2tDnfHSM>
Cc: "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "jordi.palet@consulintel.es" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Mon, 23 May 2016 15:29:16 -0000

I also agree with Jordi.

Behcet

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM,  <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Nalini
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
>
> Absolutely not, all is about the same discussion. Is about how we select the venues.
>
> It has been said many times, is not about GLBT, is about which country respect all the rights. Is about US or Spain, or country “x”, respecting everything, each country has their own rules, we like it or not. There are many many many possible reasons not to go to US for subset of participants.
>
> I’m not saying I agree with those rules, neither any kind of unequal treatment, not at all.
>
> What I’m saying is that if we start taking in consideration EVERY possible unequal treatment, politial issues, safety, health, terrorist risks, crime level, etc., etc., etc., then we will NEVER find a good venue.
>
> We can’t find a trade off if we start considering all those issues, so we need to have on top of our priority list the principal reason for the meetings.
>
> I will agree that if being married with a same sex person don’t allow you to go into a specific country, then the country should be banned, but if is a matter of traveling or not with that family, then we shouldn’t take that into consideration for cancelling that venue, because you have the choice to not travel with the family.
>
> IETF is part of our work (some got paid by their companies for it, others not). Let’s take it as if we are “IETF” contractors. We work for IETF, same as we work for our employeer.
>
> If our employeer send us to Singapore, and our famility can’t travel there, we have to choices: 1) Go there without family and do the work 2) Tell our boss, sorry, will not go there.
>
> In many countries, if you tell your boss, sorry I will not go there because I can’t bring my family, this means you’re breaking your contract and you will be fired.
>
> Again, I’m not saying I agree, what I’m saying is that we must put all the apple in the decision basket, but we must have a prioritization for all them and if we can do the work safely, with no famiily, then  we must not exclude that venue.
>
> Otherwise, ALWAYS we may find a smal group of IETF participants that have issues with a specific venue, and if we don’t repect EQUALLY all the cases, then is the venue selections criteria and in consequence all of us, who are doing an unequal treatment to different groups of participants.
>
> Regardss,
> Jordi
>
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
> Responder a: <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
> Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 20:29
> Para: <ietf@ietf.org>
> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
>
>>On 5/21/16 10:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>>> What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever
>>> circumstances?
>>
>>Please don't do the slippery slope thing.  Seriously.
>>This is about a specific circumstance.
>>
>>Also, understand that you're asking that GLBT people accept
>>different conditions for participating in an IETF meeting.  I
>>strongly agree that our top priority is, and has to remain,
>>getting work done.  But, for better or for worse, a lot of
>>participants bring their family members, and there are some
>>basic questions here about equal and unequal treatment, aside
>>from the potential safety issues.
>>
>>Melinda
>>
>>
>