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

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 25 May 2016 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9708512D0FE for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 yqzhtnXBpWHh for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E2812D0ED for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b65so91886847oia.1 for <>; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TONI8khEtOAy1nI5WHnvpwPLPFbAGrKFu2JgGLA3LVk=; b=k1GBmsNdylJs/7vQGCixcWSVSR+fiM4KE1Zhr4DULNncZAIUuKnNFGyvRCUWZtwBdA 8VQNpWi0IfUkBhwG/vys2yiDfLh4WG+ovJDyJO9ApKO6sNUCFKl0qloIGzjotUcC5g/C XqOcV0JnZ4WZ1QEwDapWbhY540qTmQeJPm/xmr5D5xaU/5fnKO4iWUZmAIczB/I5w8bR nVIiv4VpNRpqjw/f/E8vmugd4avcudvjR09oBjRbSDGx1037vAyLSfN8Sid86V9gLuPO NQVZ24OQjBS3eQ6RdeS9PICV0Skv+e5EhVQYrM1n1QGeyTJ2xcdop5cBM/Y1xkgIgZGb JRVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TONI8khEtOAy1nI5WHnvpwPLPFbAGrKFu2JgGLA3LVk=; b=JwjO+mQ9pSRdlUL2jtNqOjAglMu+SdBKnt5SCFajtj+mtplVLAlc3Xqc5abNT1YU6q hf/4U6MeeJXTy9ZZNTzBzVQVsfjXY7MFu5XcjnrSbgHZgQzblNwrzKOt83ZI5Vgxq1bs mwqKhpARGzrGzehMqVMm68VPQwKwR4XkklkldZJ8OXUTiyab5vwPvP99rlkbxwwltx2k s75evqJyc6wmkKJCB5EmDpBdX8NMabmH0Wycam9hNv48Ewip0c4Tn1lIpznSd4o65+q8 iB++KVJ8AjKSqDnZ81ctbDTFTNXGYDAm/GXVEMGbLixsJ+giWIk5oHbQPlzrK+3psGSx WIGg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLtm/qqqJRecGv8Zn/WVkYEameVE4Qia0uxJNwGtStlgGHvPl8oZvT3Hh/Mfk4ekgo9/mUfN+0H7wve5Q==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e12mr3334996ote.180.1464199860450; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 25 May 2016 11:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20160524210344.64781.qmail@ary.lan> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605242300120.194@rabdullah.local> <> <> <> <> <alpine.OSX.2.01.1605250826150.2005@rabdullah.local> <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 11:10:40 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114fd90c8ffdf30533ae98d4"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: John Levine <>, "" <>
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 18:11:02 -0000

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM, <> wrote:

> I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word
> "bigotry".  But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was
> validating Melinda's feelings.  (Sorry, I am from Northern California and
> processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
The choice of words here is important.  Inconvenience, for example, has the
connotation that the issue has no great important or long lasting effect.
Unfairness doesn't, and may be a better choice as a result.

A same sex male couple attending the IETF in Singapore will  break the law
to have a normal family life.  Suspending that life for a week may have no
great important or lasting impact to some; for others it may mean they
cannot attend except remotely.  That latter choice may have an impact on
what jobs they can do for the IETF and may have an impact on their
employers' view of their work.

As I said earlier when I suggested we work for principles rather than
anecdote, an individual's willingness to handle risk will be quite variable
depending on their circumstances, but that's not the organizational
question.  That question is either:  are we willing to presume that certain
classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the law to


Ted Hardie