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

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <> Wed, 25 May 2016 15:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A7012D169 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 08:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74hVpzLIz4mV for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 08:22:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 329CE12DC4C for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 08:19:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-MDAV-Processed:, Wed, 25 May 2016 17:19:29 +0200
Received: from [] by (MDaemon PRO v11.0.3) with ESMTP id md50000547740.msg for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 17:19:29 +0200
X-Spam-Processed:, Wed, 25 May 2016 17:19:29 +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: Wed, 25 May 2016 17:19:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
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: Wed, 25 May 2016 15:22:31 -0000


Thanks for this message, I think is the best way to express the situation amd why someone could read part of the discussion as lack of empathy, etc.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <> en nombre de Ted Lemon <>
Responder a: <>
Fecha: miércoles, 25 de mayo de 2016, 16:34
Para: Patrick McManus <>
CC: Margaret Cullen <>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

>On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Patrick McManus <> wrote:
>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Margaret Cullen <> wrote:
>I am fairly disturbed with where this discussion has ended up
>Me too. A little empathy could go a long way here (as in so many things). That's a property of good leadership.
>I think it's really important to understand that a desire to get clarity does not indicate a lack of empathy.   It's also important to understand that empathy isn't something that some people deserve and others don't.   The fact that person A has a worse problem than the problem person B has does not mean that person B's problem doesn't matter.   And indeed even the act of trying to make such a comparison is incredibly fraught.   As I said earlier, it's very difficult to discuss this because it's difficult to avoid making it sound like we have no empathy for person A when we talk about person B's problem.   But it is not fair to ignore person B's problem just because person A's problem is worse, particularly because what "worse" means is very subjective.
>For someone who has been discriminated against and marginalized their whole life, a discussion of the practical effects of a particular example of that marginalization, and how that particular example compares to the less-pervasive marginalization that someone else is experiencing which happens in a particular instance to be just as serious, may indeed feel non-empathic.
>However, I think that on a practical level the only problems that we, the IETF, can address in this context are specific practical problems.   We, the IETF, cannot directly address the pervasive discrimination and marginalization, much as we wish to do so.   Nor need we--these problems are being addressed on a social level, and many of us participate in trying to address them on that level.   It is no accident that things have changed for the better, nor is it the case that we are done.   The IETF is no more capable of getting Singapore to change its laws with respect to same-sex relations than we are capable of getting the U.S. to be less unpleasant to visitors from disfavored countries, or for example to protect travelers unknowingly carrying prescription asthma medication, Adderall or Ritalin into Japan.
>That is why I at least have chosen to focus on the practical.   It is not a lack of empathy.