Re: [Diversity] Value and respect

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 14 June 2016 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768C012D550 for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.216
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, 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=SGlhGXvP; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.b=LqR7fRF6
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vnFveZVY7HKj for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69DC812DB09 for <>; Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u5E16tGt006345 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:07:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1465866427; x=1465952827; bh=/xaO6UDw6/uVKyOHwhZxB1aD/SSc7oVj39RnURR1NOI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SGlhGXvPD9wEOVs9X981so00FWtywvgACPtw0l628wPRo4eI+xHhayDnDleaORWsc /bYvWcSM33bVGAD8JPtOaWCfoK6a3gPT6Ifeiqezea29Q1PhJ7cqUmvyl5FnacKbx9 QnZ0hHn/5aQI3FtIedAVP3fmdBE4+fMK4IJS+qzg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1465866427; x=1465952827;; bh=/xaO6UDw6/uVKyOHwhZxB1aD/SSc7oVj39RnURR1NOI=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=LqR7fRF6s7yI2VUJemZZS0igkGcjv2Ex33FdqA7risQsNGE8sfu0RSBKIvI8x0LtJ /aAq4rscA4S3/zuya/skOs/IF8sOWpAKVqHSRjygqipJmO1tk3s96EmhnYDWip8yj3 bulxvVDFTe3ouvFxpeiXLJbxxzXFS+VFQqE0yun4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:06:42 -0700
To: "Livingood, Jason" <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <20160611235942.GA39331@verdi> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 01:07:28 -0000

Hi Jason,
At 10:53 13-06-2016, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>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.

Adding to the above, I find it useful in getting 
acceptance on how a decision will be taken.  It requires some effort.

S. Moonesamy