[ The Types Forum, http://lists.seas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/types-list ]
There are too many different views on parallel conflicts, so I'm sticking to Russia-Ukraine and conferences such as ETAPS. Although the policy has been updated, there are still things to do: 1. On Russians academics: Russian academics are also scared. At least 99% of them are in the well-informed category, are therefore appalled by the war, and suffering restrictions, e.g., they are eligible for conscription in a conflict they do not support, and may be cut off from relatives. I support high level sanctions of people in the public eye, but CS researchers (unlike rectors) are not in the public eye, so sanctioning researchers would serve no good. We should be supporting these researchers. If there is a submitted paper "of political concern", from Russia (or any other country), we can have confidence that it will be filtered out by the review process without needing to update the code of conduct for conferences. 2. On Ukrainian academics: universities will have ceased functioning and have even been bombed. What ETAPS can consider is forming a committee to discuss how we can *support* the intellectual reconstruction of Ukraine going forwards. Today, we cannot possibly know the best way to proceed. However, round tables can be arranged and committees can be formed to address this question. For example, if genuine stability returns even to part of Ukraine, we, as a community, can help as visiting researchers to rebuild departments. We can also include universities in funding applications. To achieve this, stakeholders such as funding agencies and Ukrainian scientists, would need to be engaged soon for strategic readiness, rather than waiting until the solution is clearer. Why funding agencies? If they are not engaged they will not be prepared to assist, and are likely to consider adding a partner institution in Ukraine to a project as an untenable risk, rather than a major humanitarian contribution and hence points for funding a project (although not as the sole criterion of course). It seems that a conference should host this debate. Since ETAPS have gone political, perhaps they are best positioned for initiating such a proactive debate. Kind regards, Ross
