Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
2016-05-23 10:29:32
I also agree with Jordi.
Behcet
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 3:21 PM,
<nalini(_dot_)elkins(_at_)insidethestack(_dot_)com> wrote:
+1
Nalini
----- Original Message -----
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2016 12:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward
and request for input
Absolutely not, all is about the same discussion. Is about how we select the
venues.
It has been said many times, is not about GLBT, is about which country
respect all the rights. Is about US or Spain, or country “x”, respecting
everything, each country has their own rules, we like it or not. There are
many many many possible reasons not to go to US for subset of participants.
I’m not saying I agree with those rules, neither any kind of unequal
treatment, not at all.
What I’m saying is that if we start taking in consideration EVERY possible
unequal treatment, politial issues, safety, health, terrorist risks, crime
level, etc., etc., etc., then we will NEVER find a good venue.
We can’t find a trade off if we start considering all those issues, so we
need to have on top of our priority list the principal reason for the
meetings.
I will agree that if being married with a same sex person don’t allow you to
go into a specific country, then the country should be banned, but if is a
matter of traveling or not with that family, then we shouldn’t take that into
consideration for cancelling that venue, because you have the choice to not
travel with the family.
IETF is part of our work (some got paid by their companies for it, others
not). Let’s take it as if we are “IETF” contractors. We work for IETF, same
as we work for our employeer.
If our employeer send us to Singapore, and our famility can’t travel there,
we have to choices: 1) Go there without family and do the work 2) Tell our
boss, sorry, will not go there.
In many countries, if you tell your boss, sorry I will not go there because I
can’t bring my family, this means you’re breaking your contract and you will
be fired.
Again, I’m not saying I agree, what I’m saying is that we must put all the
apple in the decision basket, but we must have a prioritization for all them
and if we can do the work safely, with no famiily, then we must not exclude
that venue.
Otherwise, ALWAYS we may find a smal group of IETF participants that have
issues with a specific venue, and if we don’t repect EQUALLY all the cases,
then is the venue selections criteria and in consequence all of us, who are
doing an unequal treatment to different groups of participants.
Regardss,
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, 20:29
Para: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward
and request for input
On 5/21/16 10:14 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
What about announcing venues and cancelling because whatever
circumstances?
Please don't do the slippery slope thing. Seriously.
This is about a specific circumstance.
Also, understand that you're asking that GLBT people accept
different conditions for participating in an IETF meeting. I
strongly agree that our top priority is, and has to remain,
getting work done. But, for better or for worse, a lot of
participants bring their family members, and there are some
basic questions here about equal and unequal treatment, aside
from the potential safety issues.
Melinda
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, (continued)
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, John C Klensin
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Lemon
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Lixia Zhang
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Loa Andersson
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, nalini.elkins
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input,
Behcet Sarikaya <=
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Andrew Allen
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, lloyd.wood
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Michal Krsek
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Melinda Shore
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Eliot Lear
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Ted Hardie
|
|
|