[comp.org.usenix] Places to hold conferences

spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (06/30/91)

Well, for the past couple of months, I was trying to find a nice place
to schedule the next SEDMS (Symposium on Experiences with Distributed
and Multiprocessor Systems).  It's held in March, so I thought Arizona
was a nice candidate.  Unfortunately, Ellie told me that because of
the political fallout over Arizona not making the MLK birthday a
holiday in AZ, we would not be able to get the Usenix board to approve
that as a venue. California became the choice, over my mild objection.
Thus, at least one Usenix meeting decision has already been made on
the basis of "political correctness."

I think that is too bad.  To echo the comments of others, Usenix is a
technical organization.  If I have political views for OR against any
topic like abortion, gun control, clear-cut logging, gay rights, or
any other controvesial issue, I don't think it is the place of Usenix
to make a public stand *as an organization* on those issues.

If Usenix pulls out of New Orleans because of the recent legislation
there, it is making a statement that the members of Usenix don't
approve of the legislation -- and I know that isn't true.  Some don't
approve, some approve, and a lot don't care.  Why force political
views on someone else?  (there is some irony in that -- forcing
anti-abortion views on others)

If members of the organization want to make political statements, even
by going so far as to boycott meetings, then that is fine -- but it is
not the place of the *organization* to make it political.  I certainly
didn't join Usenix to lobby for any political agenda....and I will
drop my membership if the organization continues to do so.

Admittedly, if a significant number of the members decided not to
attend a meeting because they viewed the local political climate as
odious, then that should have an overall impact on the decision as to
where to hold the meeting.  But calls to move meetings already
scheduled is not appropriate without that knowledge.  




-- 
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	phone:  (317) 494-7825

taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (07/01/91)

Gene Spafford writes:

> If members of the organization want to make political statements, even
> by going so far as to boycott meetings, then that is fine -- but it is
> not the place of the *organization* to make it political.

I agree wholeheartedly!  And as a further issue, I've always been a
bit baffled by people who lobby to boycott products, since it seems to
me that if one is truly 'politically aware' one ends up being almost
unable to purchase ANYthing at all, since just about every company 
manages to annoy someone or other...

Even Usenix itself: not only have they voted against having events
in Arizona, as Gene points out, but they've also voted against (or, 
to be more correct, "punted on voting") having a South African
university join the organization.

There's also a question about whether the vocal minority here on the
net truly represents the Usenix membership as a whole, and if not,
whether the protest of a few (though admitedly a *key* few!) are 
really that relevant and important for the agenda of the organization
as a whole?

Schedule permitting, I will attend a Usenix anywhere in the world, as
I find the conference valuable and enjoyable.  I don't expect Usenix
to reflect my political beliefs and ideals, and I won't accept the
Association imposing political views upon me either.

						-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California

taylor@limbo.intuitive.com    or   {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor

spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (07/01/91)

I should clarify something from my previous post:

I am not aware of the board actually voting on whether or not to hold
something in Arizona.  I was told by Ellie Young that the Board would
likely never approve a meeting in Arizona because of the political
implications.   Speaking informally with Mike O'Dell and Ed Gould at
the last SEDMS gave me no indication otherwise.   

BTW, Hawaii is also out as a meeting spot....even though it is cheaper
for me to fly to Hawaii than it is to fly to NY or Florida, and I can
get rooms there for about $85 per night per person (based on double
occupancy).   Plus, it is closer to the people in Japan and Australia
who have been coming to our Symposium. That isn't a political issue,
but it is also unfortunate.
-- 
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet:  spaf@cs.purdue.edu	phone:  (317) 494-7825

ed@mtxinu.COM (Ed Gould) (07/01/91)

>Even Usenix itself: not only have they voted against having events
>in Arizona, as Gene points out, but they've also voted against (or, 
>to be more correct, "punted on voting") having a South African
>university join the organization.

This is simply not true.  There was no vote against holding any
event in Arizona.  There was speculation, on the part of the
Executive Director, that getting approval of such a site from the
Board was unlikely.  Whether that speculation reflects the true
state of affairs is not at all obvious to me.

For example, I'm quite clear as to my own position on attending an
event in Arizona, given the current state of their laws, but I'm
not at all certain how I would vote with regard to scheduling such
an event.  If I became convinced that a significant fraction of
the potential attendees would not go, then that would sway my
position, since a severely underattended event can cost the
Association a lot of money.

My position regarding Louisiana is less clear, for the simple reason
that I find the actions of their legislature to be substantially
more egregious than those of the Arizona legislature.  There are
some things that I find so reprehensible that I believe that I must
do everything in my power to oppose.

I have found this discussion to be most interesting, and I take
seriously all of the opinions expressed.  Please continue.

With regard to South Africa, the Board did not "punt on voting"
about the University of Capetown.  What they did was decline to
expend further resources to investigate whether or not allowing
that institution to join would violate U.S. law.  There are laws
on the books (now, and at the time the vote was taken) restricting
commerce with South Africa.  A first-level look at those statutes
by the USENIX attorney left the Board unclear as to whether it
would be in violation if it were to accept the membership application
from the University of Capetown.  (I was in attendance at the meeting
at which that decision was taken, but I was not then a member of the
Board.)

-- 
Ed Gould			No longer formally affiliated with,
ed@mtxinu.COM			and certainly not speaking for, mt Xinu.

"I'll fight them as a woman, not a lady.  I'll fight them as an engineer."

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (07/01/91)

>Even Usenix itself: not only have they voted against having events
>in Arizona

USENIX has never voted against having events in Arizona and has no
such policy.

For a member of the press that was a breathtakingly liberal paraphrase
of what even Gene said, David.

>but they've also voted against (or, 
>to be more correct, "punted on voting") having a South African
>university join the organization.

The deciding issue was that it would cost USENIX some arbitrary amount
of money, at least a thousand dollars (legal fees), to accept that
application.

At the time (I am not certain of the current situation) the United
States Department of Commerce was enforcing a trade embargo against
South Africa which specifically mentioned technical materiels.

To accept the application for membership involved instructing our
legal counsel to petition the US Dept of Commerce for approval. This
would cost the membership at least a thousand dollars (I remember that
was a minimum estimate.) Exact cost would depend upon the outcome, and
whether the Dept of Commerce decided to require further detail or
efforts on our (USENIX's) part to substantiate the request.

We would also need to support continuing legal expenses to determine
whether particular member benefits were exportable under the embargo,
as the issues arose (e.g. if we developed a software tape.)

It was decided this was not a prudent use of members' funds.


What surprises me is, you were in the room during that discussion and
decision, right?

Did you miss all that, or just forget to mention it?
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD

rick@uunet.uu.net (Rick Adams) (07/01/91)

In article <15157@ector.cs.purdue.edu>, spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) writes:
> I should clarify something from my previous post:
> 
> I am not aware of the board actually voting on whether or not to hold
> something in Arizona.  I was told by Ellie Young that the Board would
> likely never approve a meeting in Arizona because of the political
> implications.   Speaking informally with Mike O'Dell and Ed Gould at
> the last SEDMS gave me no indication otherwise.   

I am not aware of ANY evidence that the USENIX board does, has or will
take local politics into account when chosing the location of a
"technical" conference.

There is absolutely no official or unofficial board position on the topic
of Arizona (or New Orleans). It has not been discussed and I dont expect
it to be discussed.

Those three individuals certainly are not speaking for the entire board on
this matter.


---rick
A board member, but not speaking for the entire board.