Right. All of the discussion has been over here, because the Singapore
question is (one assumes) more urgent in peoples' minds. But there is a
consensus document being worked on; if people are really interested in
defining a policy around this issue, that consensus document or one that
follows it is where the policy should be stated. That way the policy can
go through the regular IETF consensus process.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Lorenzo Colitti
<lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
wrote:
I looked at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=mtgvenue
but didn't see much. A search for "singapore" finds 9 messages, only 2 of
which seem relevant to this issue.
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Ted Lemon <mellon(_at_)fugue(_dot_)com>
wrote:
You are probably looking for the mtgvenue mailing list, and the consensus
(we hope) document that is being worked on there.
However, that doesn't help us with the IETF 100 problem.
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:37 PM, Lorenzo Colitti
<lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Margaret Cullen
<margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
we get to say _this_ to the Singapore government, who wants us to meet
there enough that they have offered us $150K in incentives for us to come
there:
“ Singapore laws against same-sex relationships between men and
preventing the recognition of same-sex marriages could create
difficulties for same-sex partners and their children
Where was this discussion held? I don't recall it here on the IETF list.
In addition to the obvious impact on future venue selection, which I
assume has already been debated (Are we going to have to stop holding IETFs
in Asia for a few years? What does that mean for IETF participants who live
in Asia? etc.) I would assume there are other local practices such as free
speech or unfettered Internet access that the IETF might want to take a
stand on. How do we decide which ones those are?
As a community-driven organization, we make most decisions via community
process (e.g., we make technical decisions via rough consensus). Should we
be working on putting together such a process to make this sort of decision?
It seems bad to make this sort of decision on an ad-hoc, case-by-case
basis as appears to be happening here.