The situation in Singapore goes well beyond being vaguely
homophobic, to actively criminalizing the families of some
IETF participants.
And e.g. Papua New Guinea is the same. If you have a work
trip there, don't take your family there. Not least because
it's rather more violent than Singapore. But do go to
Singapore for the shopping. If members of your family have
a tendency towards shoplifting, I suspect shopping in
Singapore may be a bad idea for them. (While the
shopping in Port Moresby is _terrible_. Really limited
selections. And you need armed guards. And, oh, the
food. Locals have a sweet tooth. The diabetic and
gluten-intolerant members of your family will have
problems.)
Really, just don't take your family on work trips.
It's simply more trouble than it's worth. Either
they're bored, thrown in jail for shoplifting because
they're bored, or complaining incessantly that Minnesota
is too cold once they run out of boring interconnected
malls to shoplift from. (While in Port Moresby, the knives
come out early, and the shoplifter never gets bored. Or
reaches jail. Or a hospital. Which is perhaps just as
well.)
On a related note, nuclear weapons exist to endanger
the lives of most IETF participants. And their families.
I believe that the IETF should be actively boycotting
all countries with nuclear weapons.
Singapore, to my knowledge, does not have a nuclear
arsenal and hasn't invaded any other countries to
endanger families' lives recently, so I'm okay with
Singapore.
I really want to know exactly what the IETF's declared
stances are on nuclear weapons, on armed proliferation, and
on state belligerency on the international stage by
warriors that endanger families.
The IETF should be showing we care by boycotting those
countries that do not meet our exacting standards in this
regard. They won't get our money or suffer our complaints
about their poor hotel and wifi service, and their revenue
and funding of their military-industrial complexes will
suffer greatly while their hotel services fail to improve
at all as a result of not receiving the enlightened
supportive criticism that comes from our high expectations.
Jari, can we get a workgroup set up with a list of RFC
position statements as target deliverables to get this
started? (Also, if we can get something out repudiating
IS-IS's existence as a routing protocol and denying that
we endorse it or its spread, that would no doubt be
well-received by everyone who has never heard of or
used IS-IS, and quite a few who have.)
thanks
L.
Lloyd Wood lloyd(_dot_)wood(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk
http://about.me/lloydwood