Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF

Abdussalam Baryun <> Mon, 18 July 2016 09:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D6FC12D5CB for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qr1arUtLvXrm for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43C5D12D52C for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id s63so152246456qkb.2 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ve1N/I83vrO7LX2tgWmlSsXluEdfQ8IQQCO8Cv2K+JE=; b=ZOVTrRWRkZf/AqbliIj1FPDM+7bWii045F0At++2LjbP5u37KvjbqKHBqN/sCyuh0d OLTOW1DtfKa6nEXtyF6xaFweuPHKTnoSO5P3Dbyw6Ks9pa1xTKjf2k3nUdLjSvwSwd8T bLKuFxBor2FWqUut7cGG++Lpa7Jd9+9P3gKlw8EzzK6NJpVxKNsy6B9lA6+tFP0pUPif AvbsNu4HbEDRAjEiHVbaHz5K6/wJKV7PQRJk1WQ98ra4M/lOpcEVQISlZdJ+ZoV0m4TZ wJRAYBMq4pSMMe/xc8xfDhX7w7w9ki2gakIOnE4jvHuBXKQZa3SoFvXav4b0Zh8uY7w2 PyyQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ve1N/I83vrO7LX2tgWmlSsXluEdfQ8IQQCO8Cv2K+JE=; b=mwItnaTJW2joH62UNnIFhihGCD9OGx2QE9OO1L9028I974infJifoF4wUvsWdd9tCm cRFOEh2vAQiAasD03nBFdjYPmosQ6h6/UfTAhaNb4EgU6pJ0TEWGuVPiC5lAIPhWx+FT ayVSGxcOOA40ki0o+Q0kBE6JDqgcrsAmwZW3QkEW8aC/+bDLIrfMRwuNaTEocq3pxl/9 02fmZMvqJBOHvhYgq/cmL8BzvZJqi4awHZPjh0EK7o7kHcv7Obc3OGKU119MU5avIywc WlCjDuPxrJnkp04rnR3WG8i4Zdvh2nVxUnY/ATZUcQE96nI0oi3sl+xmIIqTosEac5Qd PSsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLqaHiK8ZhbHS9QSLUI2vr17IMq+l8SjDF79CWq1YsmdoXQ0fcIpQpBp6L113tgvC89XCsfjmAuYUyykw==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s66mr43531628qka.100.1468835824474; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 02:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Abdussalam Baryun <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:57:03 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1148a3428d1e880537e5fd94
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, Nalini Elkins <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Diversity open mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:57:07 -0000

I don't understand your message, why some people don't understand or some
may read differently. Please explain in more so we can learn. I support
your idea that there are best ways of discussing between different people
but we need to discuss what are the best ways. However, freedom in speech
is not the best way of discussion, so IMHO best practice in discussions is
that people on ietf list know that the IETF is an international
organisation, and that to be polite is not to be free in using English

In my experience on the IETF list, there are people that are not polite,
and no clear regulation is doing any thing clear about it. That makes
freedom as many like it to be. I don't mind freedom as long there is a
police/auditor that can take my rights. Your freedom or any person's
freedom must not conflict with any other person's freedom.


On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 7:35 PM, S Moonesamy <> wrote:

> Hi Nalini,
> At 06:03 15-07-2016, wrote:
>> Please, let's have a conversation.   I am quite interested in your
>> thoughts.  Is using "cultural issues" too broad a term or somehow
>> offensive?  I would like to learn what is better to use or how to talk
>> about this.   I really was not meaning to be offensive.
> You have not said anything offensive or done anything which I might view
> as offensive.
> The term is neither too broad nor is it offensive (in my opinion).  I am
> seen that term in use and I have used it too.  Around a year ago I noticed
> that some of the persons (not in the IETF) with whom I was communicating
> with did not understand what the term means.  Based on a few messages on
> from people of different countries, my understanding is
> that the term might be read differently.  It may be easier to talk to
> people from different countries to understand how to talk about it.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> diversity mailing list