Re: Concerns about Singapore

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 12 April 2016 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 3DC4212E2C0 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=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=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 Qi2VXokowbAQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x229.google.com (mail-lf0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::229]) (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 9251A12E29E for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x229.google.com with SMTP id e190so34400341lfe.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DvBFZZ7RsHXgMXpYdne/tGcVgmUBFHyfbCCFNaglB0U=; b=eCUAfd58KaK0gqJUpXEMzyq5SvHWx6/mPx99goSiH1E9AhnDzPnT74p921x6nrweiy tfBkRfgM85lL3J/gQ7LUwuqytZxiaIn8ZlOQ1VlxyuG3Gkrc2z52I2jtUrefAVXvg4Aj oEM/5VheSDkt0RlLQyiHVRJQYUnQoQZE/XjbHgM3T23v+IBO7i3Fxyp/e92oA687ko4Z QHzN0+x4cAa++vH/AjXfO1Tvz/kIneF2Ci4+AEGCChFmePMVNXdJzu8He3OxsuttXWBT lCI9WRbAN2Rn5qv0hnZT2kUWFZU4di0fL0M+hC0A6gR0Rt4A+opEKs4T33qZ5iCqZhLO zlUA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DvBFZZ7RsHXgMXpYdne/tGcVgmUBFHyfbCCFNaglB0U=; b=KzhnNXceGBKwYwjNVPJOWeKTaB3vCtp+HRjV23+auePP1i7peQ0BNeoPNSsG4I/XZ6 eDRiC0Xu1ORpekhLxQEuU4Azf2PFBVI1vyoqV87qBgKx62jQh95S6T4N2wzoAThlbt6T ARn4JF9P9FgUBIhXHfUaAwQyVGBO7l0YnEv6J9bVe53ghjv+RdfDpqKitVzLLMG7kerA o5y2GhcLcu6bllCp20lBYjUYSpZJ8Hxq3Oeuiyao91gLu1CF4VJyZShE6L/SfE41yuMm ldPetMoTLRJEyva56DgqS25JB0GzXHoPrKPgKZYzcmKueMAIWsOtpRJhA0wu9XzY9aEi Ksig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FUUGB5W/VUS9lq71lXzvB1u6Ku6Qrh5SvFzfg8rgTjLNcRu6FjqTX7ggrf/6BP2gd5DUNNUeODLZnGLWw==
X-Received: by 10.25.73.212 with SMTP id w203mr1582375lfa.22.1460480534789; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:02:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.40.136 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.41.235]
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn6Ev6YhCu9T6nmqBEgK8wVUKqBLGJ+cn4HCPPnsZzkwNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <m260vp7eke.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A6458.3050206@comcast.net> <m21t6d7c9t.wl%randy@psg.com> <570A67B4.3010206@comcast.net> <570AB3AF.2050401@gmail.com> <87twj99c6w.fsf@tops.chopps.org> <CAKe6YvMyp-DyeDwpPY6KYmbDbnpgnvVk_cUStnA32wmgDWcz3w@mail.gmail.com> <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233A62AA18@XMB122CNC.rim.net> <20160411104519.GA19092@gsp.org> <3F48466D-390C-4C18-B958-732AE3E46FF1@gmail.com> <20160411223403.GA6743@gsp.org> <CAPt1N1nNo0=JSptQdWRZCFy1v-m6Q8NQy4WVGHtnRJuFZFmMig@mail.gmail.com> <CAKr6gn1KmNcgNwbPHZWB2aJQAuchz4eB7gxJhV2Dsbc1Z50kDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mWjg_-525avYJ4PnSECYQrtpVFJCXPfH=PryJ8q0vy4Q@mail.gmail.com> <A684A3C4-7161-49F5-919E-A5F948A3F316@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|d5cb2cb80712b3716e1ab4e2a54c9430s3BCG403tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|A684A3C4-7161-49F5-919E-A5F948A3F316@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <570CF594.5070509@pi.nu> <CAPt1N1m_gbTMdxUfqgUDdKfw56E7Exfo6QU2GuxxueN_gPFCwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAB75xn6Ev6YhCu9T6nmqBEgK8wVUKqBLGJ+cn4HCPPnsZzkwNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:01:34 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1khBH4HzDg50LP9sziZXM2rURcA6b-yv=vi2M8i=4d91w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Concerns about Singapore
To: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114b15927a577d05304c9f7d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SdAETrUH2FiDifz5-Ed6Ukpxtss>
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: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 17:02:19 -0000

I suppose another way to frame it is to ask how many LGBTQ+ folks in
Singapore would be included because of an IETF in Singapore, versus how
many LGBTQ+ folks not in Singapore would feel excluded or disadvantaged
because of an IETF in Singapore.   Because I'm not personally impacted by
this, I don't really have a sense of how one could evaluate that.   I think
sharing your thoughts about this with the IAOC would be a very good idea.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>
>> I think that at this point the question of what we can do to address the
>> Singapore problem is in the hands of the IAOC, which has indicated a
>> willingness to explore going even further than Ted asked them to in
>> addressing the problem.   Ted asked them to not bring their families to
>> Singapore in solidarity with him, since he doesn't feel safe bringing his
>> family.
>>
>
> ​Ted has a point and it is a concern that we (as a part of the gay
> community) have to deal with it daily.
>
>
>> The IAOC has said they are looking into how difficult it would be to
>> actually move IETF 100 to a different country.
>>
>
> ​But, to me this is interesting, that we took the discussion, from
> solidarity and understanding of the difficulties that the gay community
> faces, to sort of escaping it and not dealing with it. By setting this
> precedence I am afraid IETF would not take place in a large part of the
> world in coming years.
>
> And isn't that excluding people (which BTW *also* includes the members of
> the same gay community, but from this part of the world)?
>
>
>> So I don't think there's anything for us to discuss here, unless you are
>> a member of the LGBTQ+ community and have something to add about how you
>> think Singapore should be handled.
>>
>
> ​I talked to my openly gay friends living in Singapore and told them about
> the discussions that's happening here. For what it's worth, I will pass on
> details to IAOC if that helps.
>
> Thanks!
> Dhruv
>
> ​PS. I agree that getting early feedback about a new place is a good idea
> and should be followed in future. ​
>
>
>
>>
>> Your point about derailment makes sense, though--this is definitely a
>> separate issue from the "virtual IETF" issue.
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> On 2016-04-12 19:15, Tim Chown wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 01:50, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing you mentioned that can't be done with existing
>>>>> conferencing software is hums, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to
>>>>> make that work.  It's not rocket science.   Chairs who judge consensus by
>>>>> looking at the room aren't following IETF process--consensus is judged on
>>>>> the mailing list.  Hums are useful for figuring out why we _don't_ have
>>>>> consensus, and for _getting_ to consensus, but if you were to judge
>>>>> consensus by hums or a show of hands, then you'd be taking a vote, wouldn't
>>>>> you?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Meetecho has a ‘hum’ button, which throws ‘hmmmmmm’ into the jabber
>>>> room for the WG. I did see it used, once.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Let me return to the start of this discussion.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that the LGBTQ peoples concern about a meeting in
>>> Singapore is real, at least it is perceived to be real.
>>>
>>> I don't think anything that is within our power to do can change this
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> Thus we need to take this seriously, the concerns is about our upcoming
>>> meeting in Singapore. That should be our focus.
>>>
>>> /Loa
>>>
>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>