On 24/05/16 22:48, Alia Atlas wrote: > 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. That about sums it up for me too. Purely related to IETF-100: If there're indications that practical problems could occur with a non-negligible probability, I'd be for moving the meeting. If we find good evidence that even in cases folks are concerned about (e.g. hospitalisation) there have been cases of male couples not having issues with that, then I'd be fine with keeping IETF-100 in Singapore. I'd be surprised if we could get good evidence for either of the above. If we can, great, but I'd not count on it. At this point I think anecdote or absence of evidence isn't likely to be very useful in terms of convincing folks. That leaves me figuring that I'm ok to trust the IAOC to make the best call they can on this one. I hope they do so in as open a manner as possible. If they choose to not move the meeting, and on the basis of what I know so far, I'd likely go (assuming I have funding at that point). The same is true if they do move it. I do think that this discussion has shown convincingly that we ought in future consider additional aspects of inclusiveness, including family accompaniment, as good reasons have been offered for that. (That's in addition to the other issues about general transparency etc.) S.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>