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

Melinda Shore <> Sat, 21 May 2016 19:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54ADD12B008 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:03 -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 zCL9JCkZH8-H for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:02 -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 00DAD12D1AA for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id xk12so49678509pac.0 for <>; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SsRfvm7O2y94LZrXhmjAi/ibrgRZ9wLJVlACEPDLGx4=; b=ZkAWvWjyBPKxTLbhNfUqyEr8ZY4eNiJT0Sq9zYYwEJsh8QHk708AWknyd4MrUpVXMg FZ3vWpPUKw4VdClUOfibxnu59gJd3t7xnCsS9W9l6YtNlfJZG2waf4maYz5iM3qsAEtS cO1VhWw9VS9Iw5CXQoAbPO+9SXA0puWj4+LLJMK43uF4DiPAM7kKVvtQ/Tuey10PA2gG RTaTNBTLxo+/0aLluy29O9SDk+Zvtnwp8nXfNxjUIAJIEUB3VllK2yyBbwPZwqv6I68F Id95LBafJvnt4T7ssfGM6emlJVLCalDZhQcTyrfHfhbmTWQlpw6e6TtK5zLsnskE4Ix8 M22w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SsRfvm7O2y94LZrXhmjAi/ibrgRZ9wLJVlACEPDLGx4=; b=M53WLVkcPK41OS4Ju6fbQEcbMemN87qhlDAl6Ay36SLW0RnSJgB7vWplaVRNR4brer LJxSIAHlxCUP++KBQGqysEkQYMVoyesUBhwlN0pgrdYiGl+8BSTgqPteLh9U6wmBUeSb S4WMLxFY5VhPDHxiDKCPonaz5TsWwPOWq9h8ujFTO9a9hwkDmgDuuVrRjJC3BSR1aLWP fNtoexi7KZR90L2XACITt6Z1VrSr0cmXxWLWfBVNzLLysEXXI+ORXI8vdHJ1+kE5dLLS YPX3jc9d4zNsrC9/1isTQv4RvOjhGFyupDpPh1HtQ7HB5a1QiF0XIwrNLsrply2fkpAj BsyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FXFiaAWr09K1MGolnQsGIoylmLnq/U2BapYDSiihfD8jhqboTF9w6d/k7BkniLFKw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id qi3mr15041886pac.24.1463860381321; Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Melindas-MacBook-Pro.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id l123sm35894351pfl.36.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 21 May 2016 12:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
To: Michal Krsek <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Melinda Shore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 11:48:57 -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="windows-1252"; 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: Sat, 21 May 2016 19:53:04 -0000

On 5/21/16 11:23 AM, Michal Krsek wrote:
> We as community need to weigh all conditions for the meeting, but I
> agree with Jordi statement - the meeting is for making the work
> done.

I think if you look through past posts, you'd be hard-pressed
to find anybody who's been more of an advocate for venue selection
based on ability to support work than I have been.  I've also been
very clear that I don't think that under our current set of
conditions there's really anything to prevent us meeting in
Singapore, which is truly unfortunate because there is absolutely
no question that Singapore criminalizes relationships between men.
Laws establishing this have been upheld by their highest court less
than two years ago.

However, the IETF has shown itself time and again to be
retrograde on diversity issues, whether it's the conditions that
allowed us to get into a situation where it never occurred to
anybody involved in the decision-making process that there might be
issues with Singapore, or hand-waving about the ridiculous
Bits-and-Bytes situation in Prague, or the ongoing issues with
leadership selection by the Nomcom.  And that's
really not okay - it's common for other technical communities to
be far more careful about these things.

> Please do not forget for those of us who simply can't afford to
> travel worldwide three times for year.

I've been self-funding for years, having to skip the occasional
meeting while chairing working groups and authoring documents
and contributing to technical work.  That's a different issue.

Anyway, given our organizational backwardness I really don't think
there's anything that can be done here.  As I said, I am making
a personal choice not to go to Singapore, but the broader situation
looks pretty intractible.