Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and r

Hi Jordi,

You are completely right that I don't know your personal circumstances.  I
do hear you implying that those with circumstances that might require
bringing their families or other assistance should figure out ways to
participate in the IETF that don't involve going to the problematic
meetings.  I feel that discourages particular sets of people from
participating in the physical meetings.

As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion.   It is one meeting
- not a pattern.  All the information from folks on the ground indicates
that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite
critical if it did become an issue.  Ted's original ask at the plenary was
that others not bring their families.  Indeed - I don't intend to, but I
have that luxury this time.

I am concerned that we are pulling apart based on nuanced opinions of a
rather complex situation with insufficient information.
One of the strengths of the IETF is that we come from different cultures
and backgrounds.  When we focus on how to make the Internet work better for
everyone and many different circumstances, this diversity strengthens us.
When we pick apart each others' perspectives and feel the need to defend
our viewpoints and culture as being open enough, I don't find it helpful.

Regards,
Alia


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <
jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es> wrote:

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