[J3] (SC22WG5.6247) 2022 WG5 meeting

[Bill Long]

> On Jun 20, 2020, at 10:04 PM, Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> 
> Vipul,
> 
> I very much agree that Las Vegas is not a good location.

I respectfully disagree.  For a long list of fact-based reasons, Las Vegas is better than most other options. After all, the city is designed specifically for visitors and meetings/conventions.  For those of us who belong to the Hilton Grand Vacations program, Las Vegas has 5 of the program’s facilities, and housing costs are essentially zero. 

> 
> If WG5 or PL22.3 is ever considering hosting another meeting in Las Vegas, we would be happy to arrange for that meeting to be hosted either at an NVIDIA facility

People are always willing to propose meetings be held where they live/work, as the meeting becomes easy and cheap to attend.  For everyone else, a PL22.3 meeting hosted by NVIDIA would end up being more expensive than Las Vegas, discouraging attendance.  I hope that is not a new goal.  (Typically, we look for host support only for the WG5 meetings. For PL22.3 meetings that do not include WG5, we have long-term favorable contracts in Las Vegas, and I would expect to continue with that favorable arrangement.)


> or in DC

We did have a WG5 meeting in Fairfax (basically DC).  It was well attended, but I did not sense much interest in going back there, and the members who arranged the meeting are no longer in the area. 

> at no cost to the committee, with as many meeting rooms as needed, A/V support, catering, comparable hotel room rates, cheap flights, and easy access.
> 
> Pasadena would be a fine location.

We have debated the Pasadena option several times and every time it was rejected.  Difficulties included poor (or very expensive) transportation to/from the airport, long distances between the housing and meeting locations, and the mid-summer weather (though Las Vegas also has this last problem).  Personally, I like the Caltech campus.  But decisions need to be driven by hard facts. 

I understand that Pasadena is convenient for people on the West Coast. But Berkeley Lab is even more centrally located and has none of the primary defects of Pasadena.  And for the goal to promote increased diversity, Berkeley would be a lot more welcoming and appealing than Pasadena. Indeed, the last WG5 meeting at Berkeley Lab had the most diverse attendance of all the meetings I’ve attended. 

Cheers,
Bill


> 
> No one has been excluded. No one was "cancelled", censured, or punished. No punitive actions have been taken.
> 
> Most of those involved in the recent discussions chose to participate in a calm, honest, and frank discussion. Some did not.
> 
> I hope no one feels the sword of Damocles is hanging over their head. But I do hope that we all are giving extra thought and care to our conduct and how we express ourselves.
> 
> --
> Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash
> US Programming Language Standards (PL22) Chair
> ISO C++ Library Evolution Chair
> CppCon and C++Now Program Chair
> CUDA Core C++ Libraries (Thrust, CUB, libcu++) Lead @ NVIDIA
> --
> 
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 16:06 Vipul Parekh via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> Under better circumstances, WG5 and J3 would undoubtedly have received an offer from Van to have Pasadena, CA as the location for the meeting, one that he had made many, many times previously but which was never accepted.  I believe it was to his anguish based on what I had discerned even with my limited interactions.
> 
> Should ISO and INCITS and by extension, WG5 and J3, really intend to advance on the diversity and inclusivity (D&I) front generally and especially on the gender and other minority representation globally, then it should immediately take note of many, many diverse points:
> 
> 1) Honest and frank discussions and an environment that can foster them is a must,
> 
> 2) Las Vegas, given its image and all that it 'sells' as possible, has considerable disadvantages from a D&I perspective.  Arguments in favor of this location, particularly by those who have an overwhelming amount of "soft" influence on the functionings of the committee, ostensibly on the basis of cheap flights, hotels, and easy access, fail to take into account the concerns of other potential attendees with differences on the diversity spectrum have with the LV location,
> 
> 3) Pasadena, CA has a considerable number of attractive qualities that have been overlooked until now, unfortunately.
> 
> 4) It is a no-brainer any consideration of true inclusivity begins with the notion of not being exclusive.  And no one sensing or fearing - consciously or unconsciously - they will be excluded or worse shunned or abused or otherwise 'canceled' on account of their ancestry or their words directed elsewhere or being insufficiently penitent even when their *actions* generally and specifically are otherwise conducive to the goals of D&I.  I think what transpired recently with the censure following the discussions regarding the ISO gender survey has laid a seed of 'cancel culture' that played into the exclusion.  I think this will harm the effort at improved D&I with WG5 and J3.  Following the recent email threads and what has transpired and given how I perceive and comprehend things that are ever so orthogonal to the developing 'orthodoxy' on so many aspects currently, I can feel the sword of Damocles hanging over my head too ever so sharply and the clock ticking toward my own 'cancellation'.  I don't believe true advancement in D&I is possible if matters remain as they are - organizations may achieve some numerical/superficial measures, but not real progress.
> 
> 5) Both an informal and formal effort to address and overcome the exclusion (and which strikes directly against any and all D&I initiatives) that has taken place, regardless of whether it was voluntary, will go a long way toward addressing future issues as well as easing the immediate concerns of someone like me.  I feel a concerted effort to bring Van and JPL 'back in the fold', one that might begin with a gesture and overture followed possibly by genuine initiative and acceptance to have Pasadena as the location of the next WG5 meeting will be an act of 'healing' for all that will go a long way toward fostering D&I.  Perhaps this effort is underway, kudos if it is.
> 
> 6) One can credibly argue an organization such as ISO is motivated per its "environmental, social and governance" ESG charter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental,_social_and_corporate_governance) to take various actions such as the one which led to the recent gender survey.
>     * Travel, especially airline travel, retains a heavy environmental footprint with carbon and pollutants.
>      * From a social perspective, recent WG5 and J3 emails themselves provided an instance of a case of someone of a different gender being hesitant to travel; there is considerable evidence involving gender and parenthood and diminished in-person conference/meeting attendance.
> With both environmental and social considerations, I hope all WG5 future meetings will be dual-mode and they will permit and enable *virtual* and in-person attendees to participate and contribute equitably.  For WG5 and J3 to make this happen successfully is another challenge it must willingly and immediately accept if they wish to be truly virtuous in their signal to improve D&I.
> 
> Regards,
> Vipul Parekh
> 
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 8:15 PM Steve Lionel via J3 <j3 at mailman.j3-fortran.org> wrote:
> All:
> 
> It's time to look for volunteers to host the 2022 WG5 meeting, which is, 
> by our alternation-convention, to be in North America. Dan has offered 
> (and received permission) to host us at Mesa Labs in Boulder, Colorado.  
> As wonderful as that is, I'd be pleased if someone who hasn't hosted 
> recently (or ever) to step up - Dan hosted us in 2016. Don't be shy!
> 
> Steve
> 

Bill Long                                                                       longb at cray.com
Principal Engineer, Fortran Technical Support &   voice:  651-605-9024
Bioinformatics Software Development                      fax:  651-605-9143
Cray, a Hewlett Packard Enterprise company/ 2131 Lindau Lane/  Suite 1000/  Bloomington, MN  55425