Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input

[Eliot Lear <lear@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ted,

On 5/22/16 12:32 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:

If I understand you correctly, you see any and all of the principles as ones we might choose to let slide in order to meet some other goal.   In that context, I find the phrase "weighting the impact to participants" to be worrying.  If you naively attempt to do that weighting by assessing the impact per individual and multiplying it out by the number of individuals you expect to fall in the class, you can easily end up continually disadvantaging minority groups.  Doing it fairly by any means will be difficult.

Put more bluntly: there will always be some group who is at least inconvenienced and at most prohibited from attending a meeting.  I agree with Stephen that the word "difficult" should be replaced with "impossible".  To your point that a static analysis could disadvantage minority groups, I agree.  This is yet another case of sharing the inconvenience.

I personally believe, because of the importance of openness to our basic operation, principles of inclusiveness should not be part of the meeting trade-off except in extraordinary circumstances.

And I don't think they are.  Quite frankly barring a location itself is a form of exclusion, especially when taking into account economics.  It may be an appropriate exclusion if going there means that many others would be excluded.  Kathleen and Suresh, and later Dave and Narelle, have made clear that diversity/inclusiveness is a broad notion.  Gender, sexual preference, and nationality are all listed in Fred's draft, as is religion.  I will tell you that religion has been a problem in the past where participants have been unable to eat according to their custom.  For those who are devout followers of a faith we have not made every accommodation.  We probably cannot.

What I find worrying is that we may end up foreclosing participation to new members because of their governments' laws.  They need to be considered in this discussion, and thus far it feels as though they have not been, and often aren't.  That is particularly problematic because it risks the future of this organization, which isn't growing very quickly, to begin with.

Earlier and at the microphone, you zoomed into the point about families.  If there is a balance between increased participation of members, and the ability of members to bring their families to events, it seems to me the latter must give way to the former, except where that inconvenience would inhibit direct participation.  And even in that situation we must be circumspect, as I previously mentioned.

None of the above answers the question of whether or not we should go to Singapore.  It is sufficient for me to know that such an analysis is taking place and that the IAOC would be willing to defend their decision.  Having clear criteria is good.  But quantifying a decision may prove "difficult". 

The other issue here is that you were surprised by the selection.  The value of this conversation is that we can avoid that from happening again to you or others.  For that I think you've done a service to the organization.

Eliot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature