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

Melinda Shore <> Tue, 17 May 2016 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C06312DD67 for <>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, 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 ymnndmIy9_qK for <>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E451D12DD59 for <>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id qo8so9596701pab.1 for <>; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KgSjFNCRwSV1QTl8W7IBeENpSqiSnKlp3ThcwlVNpKk=; b=zeBinWyGnMd+ZHML44Wlz5B1zwDJnVmI6EdUmnimG2uxkUsLHMH4TbrRA+Ot395L8s 86yatNv3AZkIVULFNlx9usu13t/S/pBusCZcD/BizXwTbpxBWz7vlj2v4bDBJ2YjuZge i7Y9oiaH70N2BrVYOlLCkLhCsweTnZu8s53hb59ZZaxYx7SkJTv5EgY5UW/8FxrJe9tm oNaXccB232fhP+liZQ8L5CM0CTqqqg85eO3CKSRF/PDp9U2/FNwjAZLX0OIUB+hjnQIG XcWQMJl+OR8sC9+T7sGz87tl2FnDIp6ui5d1NKgSVZIGfyExN443Bq+y0r2XHWLsf1hH mQyA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KgSjFNCRwSV1QTl8W7IBeENpSqiSnKlp3ThcwlVNpKk=; b=aQv3iukw7vzOhdfZrNt2pLEGXhQVf5/ZAux4Xm1OVmVmK95QK5C4EsztmhBLahUeNf W2Yy++RE3s2J/FHuWgOY6N75I4HvgYRIrtOBXUk9eXPe3TUBRofJJfAiMR3kUNrKvwmR 8L1eXOOwcYdMzxgZ04Rdw+I2rRb55IPxI44Kl/EBacb/f/SjJ48bHRsZW8+ThB7HyZ7j oEWgAcahrD9+rRVGL3h6ZYs/RQHOolc60WyzLT25f6pa8hW0C/MPEBPcoMVe0cy2CZuW uKaPzPDL/Lyhq9zgd8dAG/tqb7Qu4/UUE3s56A/COomrWA4Hutd+5JQEDifofk63NUJ0 w42g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV3VrBNFnXmgaJ51l5vTH5+dQ+S2zgoHRh+PZACzZZLtCzlBsH1GhPRdNIBFB9WBA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id zc4mr4664529pac.130.1463513386550; Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id a14sm6600700pfc.57.2016. for <> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 17 May 2016 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
References: <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 11:27:16 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:29:48 -0000

On 5/17/16 11:19 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> So I'm going to withhold expressing support for or opposition to the
> proposed course of action until we hear from GLBTQ IETFers in light of
> the information the IAOC is offering as rationale for continuing to
> pursue Singapore as a venue.

Thanks, Adam.

I think that given the structures that we've got, etc., it's
extremely difficult for us, as an organization, to be particularly
good on these sorts of problems (diversity, inclusion, etc.), and
frankly I don't see how we can pull out of Singapore given how
we make decisions and do business.  That said, I will not be
going to Singapore as a matter of personal conscience (the
laws in Singapore criminalize relationships between men but not
between women) but regard that as a personal choice, not a protest
against the IETF.

As we continue to explore the relationship between open standards
and open source, it may be worth considering whether and how our
retrograde diversity policies affect how we're perceived in open
source communities.  (<- that's more of a statement of protest).