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

Ted Hardie <> Sun, 22 May 2016 04:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C523812D172; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, 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 8hAiRB-ZgSSn; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3725912D164; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id x19so234025836oix.2; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yM03xqMvG6ESeGk/fm2dqAnhbmaYd02zexvH4iNoe+Q=; b=ZAXBnQJiIE3MuXEFbGRNwjP6byeBAHad7jpqyhFFPP33BIEglhogtVN/g9qLorLfwR rQ4BfEqtm/qkH7uHoTIfku3GMhBtc+mnoEFw8B6TW2XdCUemrbQSBYovxUmNE9r7kgcG UYQduKPjHfhkd2PP/irXsjAlI8B1+HTKUyssWn22o2rRpsB522ZNg566XQYXsFoL6TwM Cktzg0iwr7mL9RDZ8cw6xAldIY8Jg4fPr2zt6PKBhIFXujU/m6tEwtBbG7Nwa9UjBNh5 GPWziDqfE1uQ2m7r1U0ZCAMG0Q7/qCNalc4UnLGwCARxMeL3idbLbgxw0sqluTXMRrzz qbhg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yM03xqMvG6ESeGk/fm2dqAnhbmaYd02zexvH4iNoe+Q=; b=TZkyixWYyp3q+IJx2bXcojwEVaK+H2oGDbm2kmaVT7htjCAxPWEWH72ttxdIlSuTvr Bk/89aZeC3nzJWOVZ49GBzKioLpPwPkLgKRUfGskhXaEuFASW37SBS6UkQp/VdqdEAlS OTr6cx6wGHaWJ7TEdzP8ZZit1DxxkMsgWshuViyBLVNGh4+Zbrtdmo9BFhY74iKJ6kob MjCwYGddyJdblHpYCeDovPYTDOZtqyA0fgd4onfk8i6kuDLGwdakufu+xMEwNwI2eIVp tolsIjXLNosSWBnhmLRmJDi/7KCh863MGFyVzWJEeBWBg/+pA3xljo8Lx0jUzbTTVgOC x1WA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXTeCLm0mIgnk29T6qmL2k1ECKQrKGMnDEJmlx19k/DmFzjQR8pqkwyPinen1FpksDAYk/9/kGPzq+usw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id w127mr5265387oib.136.1463889889481; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 21 May 2016 21:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 00:04:29 -0400
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Paul Wouters <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d3564da60120533666cd7"
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, 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 04:04:52 -0000

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

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.

> 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