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

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

> On 15 Feb 2021, at 00:00, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>>> And my question is/was: why is this always left out or postponed?
>> 
>> Because some people are more concerned with appearance than reality, or more concerned with being able to pat themselves on the back than to actually make IETF more inclusive.
> 
> You're ascribing motives to other people. Doing so destroys good faith in the process here. Please stop.


I fervently agree.  I’ve seen no evidence that anyone in this group or even throughout the IETF community is acting in any manner other than what they perceive to be for the common good.  People just have different ideas on how to get there, and we’re all passionate about our positions.

That being said, there is a huge risk that this is exactly how this effort those of others is being perceived by a great many people, when the much harder work goes unaddressed.  To that end, I think it would be helpful for the IETF to at least acknowledge the harder work that both has gone on and needs to continue.  A great many people have worked to make the IETF accessible to others.  The IETF is perhaps the most accessible standards body, when one considers our openness, mentoring programs, past partnership with ISOC to bring in fellows, and regional activities that have been supported by people like Fernando, Alvaro, and Dhruv.  But this is an uphill battle, and we must acknowledge that as well.  Having at least a shopping list of other things that could be done to make matters a bit better would certainly not kill us.

To that end, my suggestion is a slight shift in the charter, to permit but not require, that such a shopping list be allowed to be developed in the form of an informational draft.   Some of the work that needs to happen is beyond our scope of control.  Saying that is also ok.  Someone (and this time it won’t be me) will need to take the pen on such a draft.  To Stephen, yes this is a minor increase in scope.  But it is very limited, and allows an opportunity for people to express in a structured way what they see as more important issues that need to be covered.

Eliot