On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM,
<nalini(_dot_)elkins(_at_)insidethestack(_dot_)com> wrote:
I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word
"bigotry". But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was
validating Melinda's feelings. (Sorry, I am from Northern California and
processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
The choice of words here is important. Inconvenience, for example, has the
connotation that the issue has no great important or long lasting effect.
Unfairness doesn't, and may be a better choice as a result.
A same sex male couple attending the IETF in Singapore will break the law
to have a normal family life. Suspending that life for a week may have no
great important or lasting impact to some; for others it may mean they
cannot attend except remotely. That latter choice may have an impact on
what jobs they can do for the IETF and may have an impact on their
employers' view of their work.
As I said earlier when I suggested we work for principles rather than
anecdote, an individual's willingness to handle risk will be quite variable
depending on their circumstances, but that's not the organizational
question. That question is either: are we willing to presume that certain
classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the law to
attend?
regards,
Ted Hardie