Totally agree with you regarding the diversity issues, but we aren’t going, neither should, to sort out them via the venue-selection criteria. This is an internal IETF issue that we need to resolve internally. I will love the IETF to have the power to change rules in countries that don’t respect the human rights, and if that was the case, I will be the first asking not to go to Singapore or whatever place, including (just to name a few additional aspects and not just diversity respect) those that still keep death penalty, allow people to carry guns, etc. (just to mention a few, and I’m sure other folks can disagree with me). But unfortunately, I don’t think the IETF has this power, and our decisions to go or not, to a given venue because all those aspects, will not change the rules, or even have a minimal impact. Saludos, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> Responder a: <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> Fecha: sábado, 21 de mayo de 2016, 21:48 Para: Michal Krsek <michal@xxxxxxxx> CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input >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 > >