Why not pick *nice* places for the Usenix conventions?

[Amanda Walker]

shore at theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Melinda Shore) writes:

   Maybe, maybe not.  I do find it deeply problematic that we will be
   spending a lot of money in a state that is choosing to deprive women
   of some fundamental rights.

I do, too.  However, I also know that other members will feel just as
deeply about other issues, or for that matter the same ones in other
directions.  What I do *not* want is for USENIX to become a forum for
issues that are not materially related to the business of the
organization, however strongly I may feel about them.

I might choose not to go to USENIX in Lousiana.  Someone else might
choose not to go to a USENIX meeting in New Jersey because of their
legislation on gun control.  Another person might not go to Georgia
because of their sodomy laws.  Yet another might not go to California
because they don't want to be around "ecofreaks."  The list is very long.

We all have overriding issues, and we will take them into account.  If
few people show up for a USENIX conference in Lousiana, it will have
political effects, and will probably affect future site selection.
However, I think that the issues should be addresses solely by how they
affect the functioning of the organization, not "preemptively" by means
of explicit political positions held by USENIX itself.  If we start down
that road, there will soon be no place for us to meet.

   Unless things in Louisiana start to turn around, I will not
   participate in any Usenix-sponsored event down there.

This, I have no problem with.  It's asking USENIX to take an official stand
on the matter that I object to.  Of course, there's nothing stopping anyone
from forming political groups, such as the CPSR, EFF, or FSF.  I just don't
want to see USENIX become one.
--
Amanda Walker						      amanda at visix.com
Visix Software Inc.					...!uunet!visix!amanda
-- 
X Windows: It could be worse, but it'll take time...