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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Sat, 21 May 2016 21:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF2A12D1B0 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhcIyy5slV6E for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 661FC12B076 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 14:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Sat, 21 May 2016 23:42:18 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000532263.msg for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 23:42:17 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Sat, 21 May 2016 23:42:17 +0200 (not processed: spam filter heuristic analysis disabled)
X-MDOP-RefID: re=0.000,fgs=0 (_st=1 _vt=0 _iwf=0)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.16.0.160506
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 23:42:17 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
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: Sat, 21 May 2016 21:42:22 -0000



Basically, Brian read my mind … Just a remark.

May be, before talking about diversity in the venue-selection criteria, we need to decide if traveling with families must be or not, in the “priority” list (I used it in my previous message just as an example of what could be a few points for the criteria, not necessarily saying they are correct). I will vote for no, unless it has a big impact in dropping the attendance.


-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Brian E Carpenter <>
Organización: University of Auckland
Responder a: <>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 23:00
Para: John C Klensin <>, <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On 22/05/2016 08:13, John C Klensin wrote:
>> Jordi,
>> I am almost completely in agreement with Ted's comment and
>> summary which are, I think, exceptionally reasonable and
>> well-balanced.
>I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having
>a diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a 'business'
>reason - making use of everybody's talents to the maximum - and that
>surely is the fundamental reason for the whole site selection policy
>anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist and vacation opportunities
>for family members. So...
>> In particular, "nice place to bring family or companion(s)" is
>> either a selection criterion or it isn't.  I'm not talking about
>> where it is in the list of priorities and tradeoffs; I'm talking
>> about whether or not it is on the list.
>It could be on the list if we believe that it has a significant
>impact on attendance and therefore on financial viability. But
>that's surely secondary to 'getting the work done' and 'getting the
>best range of people to the meeting'.
>> If it is on the list,
>> then I think there is an absolute responsibility on the Meetings
>> Committee and IAOC to select only those locations where everyone
>> in the community who is inclined to bring non-participants along
>> can do so.   No one gets to say (I don't think you have, but a
>> few others have come close) "It is ok if your particular family
>> doesn't feel comfortable coming because our main priority is
>> getting work done".  Either "nice for companions" is a criterion
>> or it isn't and, if it is, then it needs to apply to _all_
>> plausible companions.
>Certainly, if we consider it, even as a secondary criterion, it needs
>to have a non-discriminatory effect, for moral, ethical *and* business
>> As to Singapore, if the conclusion is that we should hold IETF
>> 100 there (or that we can't plausibly extricate ourselves), I'm
>> strongly drawn to the suggestion I think I heard Ted make at the
>> plenary, that, out of respect for his situation and that of
>> others, _no one_ should bring a family or other companions to
>> Singapore.
>I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I can no longer resist a comment
>that may be politically incorrect but to my mind shows how complex this
>discussion could easily get.
>I love Chicago. But some stupidity in the US system means that citizens
>there are now able to carry concealed guns pretty much anywhere anytime.
>I will no longer feel comfortable there next time I visit. I'm not
>sure I'd want to bring family members to such a dangerous environment
>(and the same went for the last meeting in Dallas). So by your logic,
>no_one should bring family or a companion to IETF 98.
>     Brian
>> Not only is that a way to show support, but the
>> economic impact, even if not huge, is one of the few ways that
>> an unambiguous "you need to reconsider the acceptability of your
>> laws if you want to continue to be an international go-to site"
>> message can be sent even if the meeting is not cancelled.  In
>> particular, I believe that the community should send a strong
>> message to members of the IAOC, IESG, IAB, Meetings Committee,
>> Nomcom, and ISOC and Secretariat staffs that they are not
>> allowed to bring _their_ families or companions to a meeting in
>> Singapore.  In addition to the sign of respect, that seems to me
>> one way to create some institutional memory on this subject --
>> it should not have been treated as a new issue when Singapore
>> was being selected, but "we" seem to forget these things until
>> there are loud complaints, apologize and try to make
>> adjustments, and then forget them again.
>> best, 
>>    john
>> Disclaimer: I realized in checking Nomcom eligibility
>> requirements that I haven't been f2f to any of the last five
>> IETF meetings.  More important to this particular issue, the
>> people I might be inclined to bring along discovered that the
>> schedule and pace I keep up during IETF makes me no fun to be
>> around at all, so the closest they get anymore involves showing
>> up after the meeting ends or leaving before it starts (and we
>> haven't done that in years).    So I am not significantly
>> affected personally by any of this, but that does not prevent me
>> from feeling quite strongly that the IETF needs to have its
>> criteria straight and to evaluate sites against those criteria
>> in ways that are equally fair to all participants.  We need to
>> do that not only as a matter of equity and respect because doing
>> otherwise does affect the quality and credibility of our work.