Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

[Andrew Campling <[e-mail]>]

On 2/25/2021 17:59, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>  wrote:



<bhs> I mostly agree. Both this discussion and previous (on the ietf list many months ago) opinion that the words "folks" and "y'all" are offensive to some people suggest that it's important to be able to reference multiple sources that show a real problem with a term. It's not enough for a single person to claim offense. The main problem that I, personally, see driving a need for the TERM WG is that many companies (mostly from one region) have told their employees not to use certain terms in any document or code they are associated with. Given the momentum of this movement and speed at which it is spreading to many of the companies employing IETF participants, if IETF does not address the problem ASAP, this could make it difficult for employees of these companies to actively participate. This will primarily impact a specific region/country and people employed by large companies in that region and would be independent of the race, culture, or gender of the participants. Which suggests 2 points:

=> The first problem TERM (and IETF) is tackling will ensure people employed by numerous large US companies can continue to fully participate in IETF. It may or may not have any impact on removing possible barriers to certain people based on race, gender, or culture; anyone who thinks it will have no impact on these barriers is welcome to ignore that as a reason and focus on the potential impact to participation by employees of large US companies.

=> Even if the problem with use of a specific term is limited to a single region/country...  if the problem is sufficiently widespread in that one country and could impact the ability of people from that country to participate in IETF, it should still be fair game.





This is, IMHO, a very helpful insight, I’ve not heard it expressed this way previously.  If the primary motivation of some for addressing “problem” terminology is to address policy decisions by large US companies that may impair the ability of their employees to participate in the IETF then that needs to be acknowledged, otherwise there is a risk of effort being wasted to solve the wrong problem or only partially solving this one.  I don’t believe that the discussion has previously reflected this understanding of the underlying task if it is, in reality, to satisfy US corporate sensitivities* rather than deal with issues of diversity and inclusiveness, noting that these may benefit too.



I’d imagine that being able to reference some of the specific policies of the companies in question would be particularly helpful in this regard.





Andrew



* NB There is no intention to downplay these nor suggest that they do not reflect the concerns of employees or other stakeholders.