Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input
2016-05-24 16:26:48
Hi Alia,
The fact that we are getting up to this debate, means that the IAOC is taking
in consideration the issue. Otherwise, the immediate response will have been
“sorry, we sympathize with your family issue, but at no means can that
situation be taken in consideration for even a simple study to move the meeting
somewhere else”. I may be wrong, of course, but is what it looks like.
Nothing personal, believe me, but I must say that you don’t know at all if this
affects me or not, you don’t know my personal/familiar circumstances and if
doing the meeting in Singapore or an alternative place is better for me and my
circumstances. I just take it from another principle. I’m there to work and
either I go to the meeting for work (and prioritize the work), or if I’ve a
familiar problem and is in clash with my work, tell my employer and find an
alternative solution instead of going there. What I can’t definitively do is to
ask for a venue reconsideration, unless the problem affecting me is also
affecting a big proportion of the rest of the attendees.
I fully respect inclusion and minorities. I don’t like democracy in the sense
that majority always win. Isn’t like that, but when we have a new fact in the
table, we should consider it for the future, and balance it with the rest of
the possible considerations from every other minority, and again, put on top
the maximum priority of the reason for the meetings: Getting the work done for
as much people as we can.
Reading other emails from Ted, he already had a few examples, that reflect what
I’ve in mind, so I’m not going to repeat them.
Saludos,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Alia Atlas
<akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <akatlas(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 21:12
Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and
request for input
Jordi,
I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff (a
mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored into
the IAOC venue-selection.
It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect you.
In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal guardianship &
medical concerns in a
country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other countries.
There can certainly be personal
reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require
others' judgement as to whether those
reasons are "deserving" enough.
Regards,
Alia
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
<jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:
+1 to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection
criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me
personally at any time.
Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must
consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will
be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations
take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties.
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Yoav Nir
<ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Responder a: <ynir(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52
Para: Melinda Shore <melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
CC: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and
request for input
On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore
<melinda(_dot_)shore(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t
think the ability to bring families along should be an important
consideration.
I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides
a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel
should be equally accessible to all families. I'd personally
be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done
specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile
to same-sex partners.
I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The fact
that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process that
already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it.
Yoav
<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, Michael Richardson
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Alia Atlas
- 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, Alia Atlas
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Michael StJohns
- 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, Alia Atlas
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Mikael Abrahamsson
- 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, 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, Cullen Jennings
- 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, kathleen . moriarty . ietf
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Livingood, Jason
- Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input, Stephen Farrell
|
|
|