Totally agree with you regarding the diversity issues, but we aren’t going,
neither should, to sort out them via the venue-selection criteria. This is an
internal IETF issue that we need to resolve internally.
I will love the IETF to have the power to change rules in countries that don’t
respect the human rights, and if that was the case, I will be the first asking
not to go to Singapore or whatever place, including (just to name a few
additional aspects and not just diversity respect) those that still keep death
penalty, allow people to carry guns, etc. (just to mention a few, and I’m sure
other folks can disagree with me).
But unfortunately, I don’t think the IETF has this power, and our decisions to
go or not, to a given venue because all those aspects, will not change the
rules, or even have a minimal impact.
Saludos,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 21:48
Para: Michal Krsek <michal(_at_)krsek(_dot_)cz>
CC: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and
request for input
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.
Melinda