Re: [Diversity] The nature of the IETF

S Moonesamy <> Fri, 15 July 2016 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7182A12D18E for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.077
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=giH6nGEb; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=Rh9JkLmB
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ysrAF0zqT6iP for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CCA712D14B for <>; Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:36:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6FHaHTQ001499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1468604189; x=1468690589; bh=ycAM5xPtl5Grns/spwk37GoT3MsnQ2F2W+n/da+OBsI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=giH6nGEbmdQSLBRCOkH5NwdVDmXFcGXWylKElS8gPnzAvOKCey/Nu9aHfffv41ZDW IIalukQS66hCs7n07QBnTeRrlF96KJuYV03VqJK/bupUWfuM61KnLaYYgzBC8g8l1D lomgaC6ffoTpUdHrBd80uLjsTPukC5zVm8r+v6PQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1468604189; x=1468690589;; bh=ycAM5xPtl5Grns/spwk37GoT3MsnQ2F2W+n/da+OBsI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Rh9JkLmB5MsD3zziQaOZoXxz+EllEtBCvnfhgmcZy7cahwQ71RmMIFXPCgV1oVjVX r6gj+tMfEhwS11TRWoTkGcK6aFPepQSVWwkIbdAlKZq2ZlwAX/aMf2Vx9lCs71Vqzc cBEFuSRL8oV/yHyLHZ7ErGT84EaBOFIYsDUPLTOw=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:35:25 -0700
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: < .com>
References: <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <>
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: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 17:36:31 -0000

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.

S. Moonesamy