Re: [Diversity] Value and respect

"Livingood, Jason" <> Mon, 13 June 2016 17:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0418612D8DA for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 10:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.327
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HrLqkJ_mXPCB for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 10:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8471912D8DB for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 10:53:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 60721c4c-07fff70000004cc4-f8-575ef30a360d
Received: from ( []) (using TLS with cipher AES256-SHA256 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by (SMTP Gateway) with SMTP id CF.F9.19652.A03FE575; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:53:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1130.7; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:53:13 -0400
Received: from ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:38b0]) by ([fe80::3aea:a7ff:fe12:38b0%19]) with mapi id 15.00.1130.005; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:53:13 -0400
From: "Livingood, Jason" <>
To: S Moonesamy <>, John Leslie <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Diversity] Value and respect
Thread-Index: AQHRxOtdkdoeIpEv2kW9nwzufLu9kZ/nrxMA
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:53:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20160611235942.GA39331@verdi> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forward
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrBIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsWSUOxpocv9OS7cYOZCFYtrt1ewWLy/cJ7R 4lX/TVYHZo97bz4yeSxZ8pPJ49jcw8wBzFFcNimpOZllqUX6dglcGV1bJrAU3OSqWNy+iLmB 8QxHFyMnh4SAicTjK9MZuxi5OIQEZjJJzF95iQXCOcQo0dYyDypzklHiyfw2JpAWNgEzibsL rzCD2CIC+RLHJ64As4UFtCR+73nABBHXlrj/F6bGSOJ9+ykgm4ODRUBV4vf/TBCTV8BeovWO I8T4HlaJbdN/gLVyCthKzLzfzghiMwqISXw/tQYsziwgLnHryXwmiKsFJJbsOc8MYYtKvHz8 jxXEFhXQk/hybx4jRFxH4uz1J1C2gcTWpftYIGw5iWU/7zBDzNSTuDF1ChuE7SCxs+MrlK0t sWzha7AaXgFBiZMzn0D1ikscPrKDdQKj1CwkJ81CMmoWklGzkIyahWTUAkbWVYxyZYmJKcm5 GfmlJQZGesmJSTmpesn5ucmJxSUgehMjKL6LZHx2MH6a5nGIUYCDUYmHN/heXLgQa2JZcWUu MHo4mJVEeGe+BQrxpiRWVqUW5ccXleakFh9ilOZgURLnfT0pJlxIID2xJDU7NbUgtQgmy8TB KdXAODfvevtBiwV8r5+Wys4oK7gcs6tQQ8ml6ETTracH2Zr+zur4VL2+wH7D47e1q+ZJuBT4 cW2o+b7Xy5D9snDa7bW954XD9/+K/sKXpXTjepirYansogTd8KUVk74daV3GX5te+aGFt/BW f8BLb+Edizy4FqnyrLt27+zab+ZWwTmWMyfzvJq5V4mlOCPRUIu5qDgRAMA811XrAgAA
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Diversity] Value and respect
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, 13 Jun 2016 17:53:34 -0000

On 6/12/16, 4:08 PM, "diversity on behalf of S Moonesamy"
< on behalf of> wrote:

>The second point of the text quoted above could be classified under
>freedom of speech.  Is it okay to make an argument if that argument
>would be viewed as offensive?  If a person  provides a hint about
>what not to say, it may happen that a person who does not usually
>speak English  will not understand the hint.

Good point. It often takes quite a lot of cultural and language context to
even understand a hint is being made, to say nothing of then discerning
what the hint was intended to mean.

But in any case, I really do hope we get to a point of understanding where
it is okay for IETF participants to respectfully disagree with one
another, discuss issues openly and with mutual respect, and come to some
consensus. We know how hard that is on technical issues, and it is surely
just as hard (or harder) on the non-technical ones.

It also seems important to remind ourselves that someone¹s position on an
issue (technical or not) is usually not fixed and unchanging. Rather, it
can change based on new information, new perspective, learning,
experience, and debate & discussion. Part of what we should do (IMHO) is
continue to encourage that sort of open environment & culture at the IETF.