I think that at this point the question of what we can do to address the
Singapore problem is in the hands of the IAOC, which has indicated a
willingness to explore going even further than Ted asked them to in
addressing the problem. Ted asked them to not bring their families to
Singapore in solidarity with him, since he doesn't feel safe bringing his
family. The IAOC has said they are looking into how difficult it would be
to actually move IETF 100 to a different country. So I don't think
there's anything for us to discuss here, unless you are a member of the
LGBTQ+ community and have something to add about how you think Singapore
should be handled.
Your point about derailment makes sense, though--this is definitely a
separate issue from the "virtual IETF" issue.
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Loa Andersson <loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu> wrote:
Folks,
On 2016-04-12 19:15, Tim Chown wrote:
On 12 Apr 2016, at 01:50, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
The only thing you mentioned that can't be done with existing
conferencing software is hums, and I'm sure we could figure out a way to
make that work. It's not rocket science. Chairs who judge consensus by
looking at the room aren't following IETF process--consensus is judged on
the mailing list. Hums are useful for figuring out why we _don't_ have
consensus, and for _getting_ to consensus, but if you were to judge
consensus by hums or a show of hands, then you'd be taking a vote, wouldn't
you?
Meetecho has a ‘hum’ button, which throws ‘hmmmmmm’ into the jabber room
for the WG. I did see it used, once.
Let me return to the start of this discussion.
It seems to me that the LGBTQ peoples concern about a meeting in
Singapore is real, at least it is perceived to be real.
I don't think anything that is within our power to do can change this
perception.
Thus we need to take this seriously, the concerns is about our upcoming
meeting in Singapore. That should be our focus.
/Loa
Tim