On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 2:14 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I don’t think we should put on top priority having family in the meetings, because there is the option of not bringing the family and do the work.
This will not be an option for everyone, and there is a great risk of this principle being applied in a way that it selectively disadvantages women with infant children.
Should we then find just one or two countries were everybody has no problem and always go to the same place and avoid spending the time in all this debates ?
I do not believe novelty is a quality we should be optimizing for, so I am fully on board with this theory.
What happens if because terrorism a country turns to be unsafe and we have planned a meeting 2-3 years in advance? For example, Paris/France, as it was suggested as a possible venue for next meetings in Europe a few weeks ago, seems to be less and less safe. Should we cancel it as a possible venue, even if we announce it as a confirmed venue in a few weeks but terrorism increases there ?
We have to plan for situations changing. There is a fair risk, for example, that the U.S. will be in an inappropriate destination for our meetings after the November elections complete, because it will be very difficult for Muslim attendees. Should that occur, I expect we will have to move the planned meetings in the U.S.
I hope that we can increase the possibility of virtual meetings soon, so that cancelled meetings can move online, and I believe that working toward that should be a priority.
Ted