On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:48 AM, <nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word "bigotry". But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was validating Melinda's feelings. (Sorry, I am from Northern California and processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
The choice of words here is important. Inconvenience, for example, has the connotation that the issue has no great important or long lasting effect. Unfairness doesn't, and may be a better choice as a result.
A same sex male couple attending the IETF in Singapore will break the law to have a normal family life. Suspending that life for a week may have no great important or lasting impact to some; for others it may mean they cannot attend except remotely. That latter choice may have an impact on what jobs they can do for the IETF and may have an impact on their employers' view of their work.
As I said earlier when I suggested we work for principles rather than anecdote, an individual's willingness to handle risk will be quite variable depending on their circumstances, but that's not the organizational question. That question is either: are we willing to presume that certain classes of participants must either skip a meeting or break the law to attend?
regards,
Ted Hardie