There is another side to this, although I don't disagree with either of you on the China observation.
The other side is this: it's tempting to say that since in the U.S. up until recently, gay rights weren't a thing, and yet we held meetings in the U.S., the same should apply elsewhere. However, consider this: until fairly recently, in the United States, if your spouse happened to be the same sex, and got ill, or if a child got ill, there was a very, very real chance that you would not only be excluded from making decisions about their health options, you might be prevented from even being in the same room with them.
This was something we tolerated in meeting venues because we didn't really have a choice until fairly recently, other than simply restricting our meetings to Europe and perhaps some parts of Asia.
Now that this is no longer an issue at least legally in the U.S., it would be a backslide to go to a place where it still is an issue, even though we tolerated this risk in the past. I am fortunate enough to be married to someone for whom this risk does not exist for me at present (although it would have in the past, since she is from a different religious heritage than I). It breaks my heart to hear stories of the horror that gay couples have gone through because of discrimination of this sort and other sorts. I am not okay with being party to that happening in the future.
I agree that engagement is important, but let us bear in mind the risks we are asking our friends and colleagues to bear when we have this discussion.
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jeffrey Haas <jhaas@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:28:18AM -0700, Ole Jacobsen wrote:
> I will just add that "engagement" is often seen as a better strategy
> than "boycott" in many circles, but we don't need to have that debate
> here and now :-)
This also covers much of my opinion. In the absence of outright impact to
safety, it's better to engage. Such engagement might imply an inquiry by
the IETF (potentially via either IAOC, IAB or whatever portion of IETF
"management" is deemed appropriate) to the host government as to the
concerns of the IETF for the welfare of its membership.
Laws and social norms shift at speeds even slower than our RFC process. But
similarly, legal consensus is shaped by participation. "We're concerned,
could you please clarify" may help refine the opinion of the host government
while simultaneously clarifying membership welfare issues.
-- Jeff