Subject: Re: [Mtgvenue] A couple of meta points -- IETF 100, Singapore, onwards

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 19:49:27 -0400

Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]> wrote:
    > If the IETF community wants to shift the focus of requirements and make
    > requirements include other things

    > — such as suitability for family attendance,
    > selecting for absence of laws or other policies that make
    > the experience more difficult or uncomfortable for some part of our
    > community

My comments:

1) my first IETF was 35 in LA, and I've been to an average of 5 out of 6
   meetings since.  I budget for 2 meetings out of three.

2) I will vote with my wallet on local politics.  I am unlikely to attend
   IETF100 in Singapore in Nov. 2017.  I chose not to attend Beijing for
   human rights issues as well.
   If some company/customer came a long and paid my way I might change my
   mind.

   AT THIS POINT I WANT TO REMIND THAT NOVEMBER IS NOMCOM INTERVIEW MEETING.
   I'VE SAID THAT NOVEMBER MEETINGS NEED TO BE extra-HASSLE-FREE REPEATEDLY.

   I would have voted against Honolulu in 2014 (it would have been the
   destination I would decide not to attend), except that I was nomcom chair.

3) my spouse (and later spouse+child) have attended approx. 4 IETF meetings with me.
   In two cases the trip was entirely at our discretion; had there
   been some constraint that would have made it difficult they would not have
   travelled, or would have met up with me elsewhere.

   The other two cases, bringing family was not optional.
      The cities were: SFO, YVR (November), and Prague (March x2).

   I mention the cities and months; these were not tourist destinations
   (i.e. Orlando, Honolulu, ...), but they were parts of what were turned
   into bigger trips to see relatives.
   (My wife came to SFO because she likes the place)

   The YVR (November 2005, #64) trip was with a 5 month old child.
   {ietf-moms, later renamed ietf-companions was created for this trip!}

   I had missed the summer meeting, and I was able to attend only because I
   brought my wife with me; we were too new parents to be able to cope alone.
   I attended at most one meeting in 2006 (montreal; almost a day trip), and
   the single meeting in 2007 was Prague, again with family because leaving
   my wife at home was not really an option.
   (Ask a new parent who is having to supplement about sterilizing water in
   a hotel room... )

I'm not sure what "suitable for family attendance" means.  Some might read
that as "fun places for families". I don't think that's what intended, so I
search for alternative wording.  Something more like:
       "does not present hurdles for family attendance"

I've frankly never travelled on a business VISA and brought family. I have no
idea what is involved, or what kind of VISA the family receives.
A place that will not issue "spousal" VISAs for same-sex couples would
"present hurdles."

I want to re-iterate that we didn't pick the destinations because they were
fun to attend.  We picked them because of a combination of:
    a) I needed to be there in person for meetings X,Y or Z.
    b) X is less $$ than Y -or-
    c) X is close to relative Q than Z.
    d) we've been to X before, and know we can cope.

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-