Hi,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Ted has a point and it is a concern that we (as a part of the gay
community) have to deal with it daily.
The IAOC has said they are looking into how difficult it would be to
actually move IETF 100 to a different country.
But, to me this is interesting, that we took the discussion, from
solidarity and understanding of the difficulties that the gay community
faces, to sort of escaping it and not dealing with it. By setting this
precedence I am afraid IETF would not take place in a large part of the
world in coming years.
And isn't that excluding people (which BTW *also* includes the members of
the same gay community, but from this part of the world)?
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.
I talked to my openly gay friends living in Singapore and told them about
the discussions that's happening here. For what it's worth, I will pass on
details to IAOC if that helps.
Thanks!
Dhruv
PS. I agree that getting early feedback about a new place is a good idea
and should be followed in future.
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