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

[Ted Hardie <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Paul Wouters <[e-mail]> 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.



> 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