Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Keith Moore <> Thu, 25 February 2021 21:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5903A0C46 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:06:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KL18iL0jMQcI for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:06:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01F463A0BFF for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:06:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA3B5C0098 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:06:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:06:07 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=oUVn5JQwG0i4diAQrEPcqOzmK9yj29KEq966r8ilh TQ=; b=okJsNcMAdmlJSpEjAP/IX6Rj6qpw2T19g+1PPiO9xl/TbfHsHu87yYgD2 iO7JEHP3jv0BUzjwrnUuE/4zKh750ZUPf5+MEgoP7DAQk24YJ6WJqQRDPsHXmSw9 xQU0zseCmBnDlyU4ypph7meOkAPba3tE6spGopCAtuOv+fr3a5PXeJPIPupuB2T3 +KChj1rHPe+85qh0IPWsTIqapBdYi0Sh4XfV7/J37tIhMVAOBgantFqNQrDz8hkk ie3aEV0Us8bUv1kjOo19D3nj5vOtBchT7VYiOhBEOaxTC/WHPDUEd89vaSWzRbJo 7RIBhwtEc9B1St2wsOIlQ8GZ7gI2A==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:PhE4YKSMyR0V7jkgf805wm9E1GjW6I8ZclpltJuHPGXKR7xMkZHOgQ> <xme:PhE4YPxVUuozNBYApL_3mTGHJqZzrZePEQeQtFiiBcKzjLP2ze_ytFfSzX5bHViAw MVTb_-McT8kHQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrkeelgddugeekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehhfeutdehfe fgfefghfekhefguefgieduueegjeekfeelleeuieffteefueduueenucfkphepuddtkedr vddvuddrudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrg hilhhfrhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:PhE4YH1c_4GExnCuvD2MOf1kdss-yL8DjDzHmrSdUZHQF5sr4X_imQ> <xmx:PhE4YGAb8rQwMRhe-MI9m2M9UYxXkWfgisYhon_8puMAnplhCLntFg> <xmx:PhE4YDiscUjAN5FcLbVhLvvn53XLzGa7Qh67eziKTVpl8nOZYO274w> <xmx:PxE4YCQc6Tt59diSc7Z-WfkT2g7nMPJMmS4hxfLt0rmOBxVZOo1Whw>
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AD3301080054 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:06:06 -0500 (EST)
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB0573CCBC5E8408F184DE110FC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <>
From: Keith Moore <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 16:06:05 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:06:18 -0000

On 2/25/21 12:58 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:

> 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.

I'm not following this.   Are you saying that IETF will be expected to 
bring its notion of acceptable vocabulary in line with those of some 
large companies that are mostly from one region so that those companies' 
employees are not at risk of violating their employers' policies if they 
participate in IETF?   Or are you saying that document authors/editors 
who work for such companies will be constrained by IETF to violate their 
employers' policies if IETF doesn't adopt its own policy (which might be 
different from the policies of those companies)?

Given that we're all supposed to be participating in IETF as 
individuals, do those companies also constrain what their employees can 
write on their own time?

I guess I don't see a TERM document forcing anyone to use any particular 
terminology (at least, I hope it doesn't) so much as saying "try to 
avoid these specific terms unless there's a good reason to do so".   And 
that seems Mostly Harmless to me and may create some good will.   But 
if  IETF has to align its rules with those of Big Companies Mostly From 
One Region, I consider that extremely problematic.