ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Recentattendees] Background on Singapore go/no go for IETF 100

2016-05-26 15:28:40
Margaret
With all due respect , please do not mix the Singapore issues with the Buenos 
Aires IETF. The latter was a success for our local communities as you can see 
from the number of newcomers from the region. This was a goal from the start 
and it was achieved.
I wonder what you mean by "regular" attendees? Those from northern hemisphere 
countries? Please bear in mind that there's a wider community outside the 
northern hemisphere also interested in the future of the Internet.
Keeping ietf open only for "regulars" doesn't make much sense when also 
striving for diversity, or does it?
We can discuss 95 on a separate thread. I'd be more than happy to. But please 
do not mix 95 with ietf 100.
Carlos

Sent from a mobile device. Enviado desde un dispositivo movil.
Sent using CloudMagic Email 
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=pi&cv=7.6.23&pv=9.3&source=email_footer_2]
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Margaret Cullen 
<margaretw42(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi Fred,

On May 26, 2016, at 1:15 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/
 indicates that 12 states have anti-sodomy laws on the books, including 
Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that those laws are unconstitutional. The fact 
that states have not cleared them off the books is annoying, but does not mean 
that they are currently enforced or enforceable.

As far as I know, the law in Singapore is still in force. According to videos 
sent by one of the posters here, their Parliament considered rescinding the law 
bout 10 years ago, and decided not to rescind it.

We have met three times in Texas, three times in Florida, and once in Utah. 
We have had no incident that I became aware of.

Did any IETF participant claim, in advance or since, that it wouldn’t be safe 
for them to travel to those locations?

Which doesn't say that Ted is wrong, but it says that his information is 
dated.


I have known Ted Hardie for almost two decades, and while we don’t always 
agree, I have never known him to be careless, alarmist or paranoid. Ted cares 
deeply about the IETF and the Internet, and I don’t believe he would raise an 
issue like this to gain attention or obstruct our work. So, when Ted says that 
it might be unsafe for him to travel to Singapore with his family, I believe 
that there are rational reasons for him to think so.

If we can't go to Singapore, I don't see how we go back to Texas, Utah, 
Florida, important parts of Africa, or the Arab world. And, oh yes, much of 
Eastern Asia. To me, that's the crux of the issue. I respect Ted, Melinda, 
and the many others that are LGBT and working in the IETF. However, the issue 
has, in my opinion, become far more political/emotional than fact-based. I'd 
like us to make sure we have the right guidelines in venue selection that 
focus on having successful meetings, and remote participation capabilities 
that will enable someone that chooses to attend that way to do so 
productively.

I hope we would not go to most of the Arab world, anyway, because of the status 
of women in those countries. I would not be willing to travel to a country 
where women cannot vote, cannot own property, cannot drive, etc. So, if the 
IETF were to go to one of those countries, I would not attend. I would also 
think less of the IETF and it’s commitment to gender diversity. (BTW, I think 
it is fine for women to _choose_ to abide by religious or cultural restrictions 
— I object to laws that require them to do so.)

You seem to be advocating for an IETF that meets all over the world, while 
people who are unwilling to travel to those places for reasons of safety or 
ethics would stay home and participate remotely. While there might be some (as 
yet unquantified, see below) advantage to that approach, it would have the 
_hugely unfortunate effect_ that the most privileged people in the world (rich, 
white, U.S./European, straight men) might be the only ones who are willing/able 
to attend every meeting in person. Given that our leadership selection process 
depends on in-person attendance, both as a way to select nomcom members and as 
a requirement for leadership positions, that would run counter to our efforts 
to make the IETF a more diverse organization across many lines.

Also, while I enjoy our World Tour as much as the next girl, the meeting in 
Buenos Aires had very poor attendance from regular attendees, and this made it 
harder to get work done, IMO. Attendance numbers (and therefore registration 
fees) were also down. What are the benefits that offset those costs? Does 
having one meeting in a country actually result in an increase in meaningful, 
ongoing participation from people in that country? Has anyone checked how many 
first-time attendees from a given location send mail to our mailing lists more 
than six months later, attend future meetings (in person or remotely) and/or 
author documents? If so, could someone publish the results of these studies?

This is obviously a very complicated issue. The IETF has a choice to make about 
what sort of organization it wants to be, and there are rational viewpoints on 
both sides of this issue. I don’t think we will resolve this issue, though, if 
we keep throwing up strawmen (like being unable to meet in Texas), instead of 
trying to understand the more subtle effects of the choices we are making in 
these situations.

No one person can have a diverse perspective, and I can’t claim to speak for 
everyone in the IETF about these sorts of issues any more than you can. 
Probably the best way for the IETF to make good, carefully researched and 
highly responsive decisions in this area would be to have an IAOC that is as 
diverse as possible, along as many different lines as possible. I will send 
that suggestion as input to the new nomcom when it has formed.

Margaret




_______________________________________________
Recentattendees mailing list
Recentattendees(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/recentattendees
Co
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>