On 22/05/2016 08:13, John C Klensin wrote:
Jordi,
I am almost completely in agreement with Ted's comment and
summary which are, I think, exceptionally reasonable and
well-balanced.
I agree, but I also agree with Jordi. The main reason for having
a diversity policy is ethical and moral, but there's also a 'business'
reason - making use of everybody's talents to the maximum - and that
surely is the fundamental reason for the whole site selection policy
anyway. It certainly isn't providing tourist and vacation opportunities
for family members. So...
<snip>
...
In particular, "nice place to bring family or companion(s)" is
either a selection criterion or it isn't. I'm not talking about
where it is in the list of priorities and tradeoffs; I'm talking
about whether or not it is on the list.
It could be on the list if we believe that it has a significant
impact on attendance and therefore on financial viability. But
that's surely secondary to 'getting the work done' and 'getting the
best range of people to the meeting'.
If it is on the list,
then I think there is an absolute responsibility on the Meetings
Committee and IAOC to select only those locations where everyone
in the community who is inclined to bring non-participants along
can do so. No one gets to say (I don't think you have, but a
few others have come close) "It is ok if your particular family
doesn't feel comfortable coming because our main priority is
getting work done". Either "nice for companions" is a criterion
or it isn't and, if it is, then it needs to apply to _all_
plausible companions.
Certainly, if we consider it, even as a secondary criterion, it needs
to have a non-discriminatory effect, for moral, ethical *and* business
reasons.
As to Singapore, if the conclusion is that we should hold IETF
100 there (or that we can't plausibly extricate ourselves), I'm
strongly drawn to the suggestion I think I heard Ted make at the
plenary, that, out of respect for his situation and that of
others, _no one_ should bring a family or other companions to
Singapore.
I'm not sure how realistic that is, but I can no longer resist a comment
that may be politically incorrect but to my mind shows how complex this
discussion could easily get.
I love Chicago. But some stupidity in the US system means that citizens
there are now able to carry concealed guns pretty much anywhere anytime.
I will no longer feel comfortable there next time I visit. I'm not
sure I'd want to bring family members to such a dangerous environment
(and the same went for the last meeting in Dallas). So by your logic,
no_one should bring family or a companion to IETF 98.
Regards
Brian
Not only is that a way to show support, but the
economic impact, even if not huge, is one of the few ways that
an unambiguous "you need to reconsider the acceptability of your
laws if you want to continue to be an international go-to site"
message can be sent even if the meeting is not cancelled. In
particular, I believe that the community should send a strong
message to members of the IAOC, IESG, IAB, Meetings Committee,
Nomcom, and ISOC and Secretariat staffs that they are not
allowed to bring _their_ families or companions to a meeting in
Singapore. In addition to the sign of respect, that seems to me
one way to create some institutional memory on this subject --
it should not have been treated as a new issue when Singapore
was being selected, but "we" seem to forget these things until
there are loud complaints, apologize and try to make
adjustments, and then forget them again.
best,
john
Disclaimer: I realized in checking Nomcom eligibility
requirements that I haven't been f2f to any of the last five
IETF meetings. More important to this particular issue, the
people I might be inclined to bring along discovered that the
schedule and pace I keep up during IETF makes me no fun to be
around at all, so the closest they get anymore involves showing
up after the meeting ends or leaving before it starts (and we
haven't done that in years). So I am not significantly
affected personally by any of this, but that does not prevent me
from feeling quite strongly that the IETF needs to have its
criteria straight and to evaluate sites against those criteria
in ways that are equally fair to all participants. We need to
do that not only as a matter of equity and respect because doing
otherwise does affect the quality and credibility of our work.