Re: [Gendispatch] draft charter text: terminology-related WG

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

> On 16 Feb 2021, at 20:19, Lars Eggert <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I fail to understand how chartering this WG prevents discussion of and work on other initiatives that can make far more of a difference in terms of inclusivity.

The difference is talking about doing and just getting on with the job.

> 
> I see this as starting a particular effort that we've discussed for a long time and have at least some consensus on. This is a beginning, not an end?

I should hope.

> 
>> And just on this:
>> 
>>> As many others have already said, that doesn't mean that this effort should or will be the only thing we'll do towards increasing inclusivity. I fully expect that we'll discuss objectives and proposals for other activities in the future, possibly based on the catalog you mention above. But I see no reason to postpone the start of this particular activity until we know what else we might want to do?
>> 
>> I have not suggested that.  I suggested that we allow a specific optional work item to be discussed in the new WG.  What I don’t understand is the argument opposing.  But sure.  We could come back here, and have the argument to dispatch… again.
> 
> Is the specific optional work item you are referring to the "catalog of diversity issues"? (Please correct me if I misunderstood and/or summarized incorrectly.) If so, I see that as a useful activity, but one that is outside the narrow charter of this proposed WG.
> 
> We should absolutely come up with other initiatives to increase inclusivity and charter or otherwise realize them. But I see no good reason to delay the start of this particular initiative until we're ready to also start others.
> 

Do we lack consensus on the one narrow point I mentioned?  If so, I’m just saying let’s get on with it.

Eliot