Be sure that at no means I want to discourage anyone to participate in the IETF meetings, or giving less priority to few than majorities, but in the scope of the work itself. I guess the main problem is our disagreement regarding that a participant of the IETF has no other choice than 1) Go to a meeting and bring his family vs 2) Not going to the meeting or not bringing his family. I said this already a few messages ago. If instead of the IETF is a business meeting that your boss tell you need to go (at least in my country, and here comes what you said about different cultures), you will have no choice: a) Go there b) You’re fired, maybe unless a colleague can make it for you and your boss accept it But definitively, you will not be able to argue in front of a court to defend your job that you can’t go there because your family need to go there with you and that country don’t allow it. I know seems quite simplistic approach, but what I’m saying is that as much as we can we should support families to go to IETF meetings as much as possible, but not necessarily change our decisions (even less if already taken and engaged in contracts), If in some cases that’s not feasible/convenient, unless the situation affects a big enough group that will mean the work can’t be done. Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> Responder a: <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 23:48 Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input >Hi Jordi, >You are completely right that I don't know your personal circumstances. I do hear you implying that those with circumstances that might require bringing their families or other assistance should figure out ways to participate in the IETF that don't involve going to the problematic meetings. I feel that discourages particular sets of people from participating in the physical meetings. > >As far as Singapore goes, I don't have a clear opinion. It is one meeting - not a pattern. All the information from folks on the ground indicates that the risk of this being an issue is extremely low - but also quite critical if it did become an issue. Ted's original ask at the plenary was that others not bring their families. Indeed - I don't intend to, but I have that luxury this time. > >I am concerned that we are pulling apart based on nuanced opinions of a rather complex situation with insufficient information. >One of the strengths of the IETF is that we come from different cultures and backgrounds. When we focus on how to make the Internet work better for everyone and many different circumstances, this diversity strengthens us. When we pick apart each others' perspectives and feel the need to defend our viewpoints and culture as being open enough, I don't find it helpful. > >Regards, >Alia > > > >On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:26 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Hi Alia, > >The fact that we are getting up to this debate, means that the IAOC is taking in consideration the issue. Otherwise, the immediate response will have been “sorry, we sympathize with your family issue, but at no means can that situation be taken in consideration for even a simple study to move the meeting somewhere else”. I may be wrong, of course, but is what it looks like. > >Nothing personal, believe me, but I must say that you don’t know at all if this affects me or not, you don’t know my personal/familiar circumstances and if doing the meeting in Singapore or an alternative place is better for me and my circumstances. I just take it from another principle. I’m there to work and either I go to the meeting for work (and prioritize the work), or if I’ve a familiar problem and is in clash with my work, tell my employer and find an alternative solution instead of going there. What I can’t definitively do is to ask for a venue reconsideration, unless the problem affecting me is also affecting a big proportion of the rest of the attendees. > >I fully respect inclusion and minorities. I don’t like democracy in the sense that majority always win. Isn’t like that, but when we have a new fact in the table, we should consider it for the future, and balance it with the rest of the possible considerations from every other minority, and again, put on top the maximum priority of the reason for the meetings: Getting the work done for as much people as we can. > >Reading other emails from Ted, he already had a few examples, that reflect what I’ve in mind, so I’m not going to repeat them. > >Saludos, >Jordi > > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Alia Atlas <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> >Responder a: <akatlas@xxxxxxxxx> >Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 21:12 >Para: Jordi Palet Martinez <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >CC: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input > >>Jordi, >>I've never heard any indication that the extremely minimal companion stuff (a mailing list and one gathering that the companions pay for) has factored into the IAOC venue-selection. >> >>It's always easy to give up - in the abstract - things that don't affect you. >> >>In this particular instance, the concern is about keeping legal guardianship & medical concerns in a >>country whose laws may not recognize familial ties legal in other countries. There can certainly be personal >>reasons why bringing a child along is necessary - and they don't require others' judgement as to whether those >>reasons are "deserving" enough. >> >>Regards, >>Alia >> >> >>On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:04 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>+1 to drop companion stuff IF it is increasing the IAOC venue-selection criteria difficulties, and I want to make it clear, even if it affects me personally at any time. >> >>Even if is only for simple curiosity (I don’t think our decisions must consider other organizations decisions, but is always good to know), it will be nice to know if venue-selection-criteria of other similar organizations take in consideration possible “difficulties” for companion/familties. >> >>Regards, >>Jordi >> >> >>-----Mensaje original----- >>De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> >>Responder a: <ynir.ietf@xxxxxxxxx> >>Fecha: martes, 24 de mayo de 2016, 20:52 >>Para: Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> >>CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> >>Asunto: Re: [Recentattendees] IETF 100, Singapore -- proposed path forward and request for input >> >>> >>>> On 24 May 2016, at 9:28 PM, Melinda Shore <melinda.shore@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 5/24/16 10:14 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: >>>>> Then I guess where I disagree with both you and Melinda is that I don’t >>>>> think the ability to bring families along should be an important >>>>> consideration. >>>> >>>> I don't, either, but as long as the IETF does, and provides >>>> a companion program, I feel quite strongly that IETF travel >>>> should be equally accessible to all families. I'd personally >>>> be good with dropping the companion stuff UNLESS it was done >>>> specifically to avoid problems with travel to places hostile >>>> to same-sex partners. >>> >>>I would be happy with dropping the companion stuff for many reasons. The fact that it adds considerations and criteria to the IAOC’s decision process that already has way too many criteria is just another reason to drop it. >>> >>>Yoav >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >