On 5/21/16 11:23 AM, Michal Krsek wrote:
We as community need to weigh all conditions for the meeting, but I agree with Jordi statement - the meeting is for making the work done.
I think if you look through past posts, you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who's been more of an advocate for venue selection based on ability to support work than I have been. I've also been very clear that I don't think that under our current set of conditions there's really anything to prevent us meeting in Singapore, which is truly unfortunate because there is absolutely no question that Singapore criminalizes relationships between men. Laws establishing this have been upheld by their highest court less than two years ago. However, the IETF has shown itself time and again to be retrograde on diversity issues, whether it's the conditions that allowed us to get into a situation where it never occurred to anybody involved in the decision-making process that there might be issues with Singapore, or hand-waving about the ridiculous Bits-and-Bytes situation in Prague, or the ongoing issues with leadership selection by the Nomcom. And that's really not okay - it's common for other technical communities to be far more careful about these things.
Please do not forget for those of us who simply can't afford to travel worldwide three times for year.
I've been self-funding for years, having to skip the occasional meeting while chairing working groups and authoring documents and contributing to technical work. That's a different issue. Anyway, given our organizational backwardness I really don't think there's anything that can be done here. As I said, I am making a personal choice not to go to Singapore, but the broader situation looks pretty intractible. Melinda