Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input Sun, 22 May 2016 04:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017BF12B074; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id apqeJaQfXnGZ; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4292C12B010; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y126so54252221qke.1; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JO+gFOaE345uY1cS15beNXSTeBrv8RDoOyozb9YuKRI=; b=qtjpUuD0ZkM+2ti9PGxddUloY+EPFYpEtiZRxU/zC06I1FhgCgDRybUAkT4I6FBv4H 8D5UAIyXLIMzzWBguwiQFBFbl25Cuw1d2+4OKNURjfIIOWzyotbxc4NcddJ/hsQcVgqp JYbLQI6GGUIB1OsiasXZlLqF39QpWX2GhCFWY/mfIiJzYU/I0OX+89Pjn+8VpALFoyfy 5X7794mHJfo6Slru6b5aE6peg7sm4t/joBrAriKxSDhpc5Qz42QHU7iV6leXQuhF1rj0 K37D4OY4FgARahgkVFv6eG7QyhjvffsPrjHDQJjt09Y3P8M/VakNwAaef/SM4aqj+nGk Gktg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JO+gFOaE345uY1cS15beNXSTeBrv8RDoOyozb9YuKRI=; b=EwTxjk/qQE6eRzOg8o/316l7MolZDGEzZBT9sjuWA92EZZBcFcWEu5Xati2iiEGdQh 0A+PGWU95pEe8/QoT/ansfwL7RU1vg3CzTfFRy+b8aexB/bNJ5hQYvopYUobi5IZi6GG igxKZn8VXWJtto7skOVvqIK5hXXTUtLCEOj/n1fC95WTsCkBrt3B+g2sg949seeEkJGZ VvTwHg2ygcjpg4qXbyOZIPRwFIb9Hjaz4Z/tZPZfPYflmrKQliiDglnhecbcdGab2nB3 +9n4gH+BETk9nLGNAboKCrRAVvbhCiDapG/XtsuLsFMZpOssGiHay3Uesm9hwd+MIY1w xXdA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWaFASaBky3T+7OFZrlFci+lw3YNQ/DgryLdAhz32mA4GcJ1SIXV8fN7PWeB08Oyw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id y37mr6450253qty.93.1463893124353; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id x13sm1384261qtc.12.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 May 2016 21:58:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-C3F7D5CC-82F7-46D6-BA72-115C3A3EE049"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12H143)
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:58:42 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Paul Wouters <>, IETF <>
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: Sun, 22 May 2016 04:58:47 -0000

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 22, 2016, at 12:04 AM, Ted Hardie <> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Paul Wouters <> wrote:
>>>    In Singapore, there are classes of people who are effectively excluded (e.g. any same sex couple whose child is of age to need both parents present).   Whether any member of that
>>> class speaks up at the moment is not the issue, if we believe a family member of that class should be able to attend.
>> But this example does not relate to IETF participation.
> I am sorry that this was not clear, but it is about participation.  If a child is of an age or in circumstances where both parents are needed, then holding a meeting where both parents cannot be present or cannot be recognized as parents excludes the IETFer(s) in the group from participating.
> This has been the circumstance for me in the past, and it is the reason I missed one of the meetings when I was an AD.

Anyone breastfeeding needs to travel to these meetings with their baby plus someone to help with the baby while in meetings -  not an uncommon need.  There are probably other circumstances that participants run into where it just makes sense to travel with the family given the duration of meetings.  Sometimes family traveling with you is necessary.

>> If you pick local laws related to _anything_ as exclusion criteria, you
>> are going to cut out a lot of the world (also excluding the US)
>> which then runs against the diversity principle of holding meetings at
>> different places.
> I think the diversity principle is not "hold meetings in different places", which would put a premium on novelty, but on "hold meetings so that the disadvantages of travel are equally distributed".  It may well be that only a small number of places meet our bar for inclusiveness, and that we shuttle among them.  As long as that shuttling still spreads the disadvantages of travel equally, we meet the goal.
> Ted Hardie