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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 15/2/21 14:23, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Fernando,
> 
>> On Feb 14, 2021, at 12:40 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 14/2/21 14:46, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I agree.
>>> I also think that diversity in the IETF and language in RFCs are mostly different topics.
>>> Diversity in the IETF is about who participates in the IETF, increasing participation in the IETF, etc.    RFCs are used by a much broader Internet community that the folks who participate in the IETF.
>>
>>
>> Focusing on this, while ignoring the rest, reads a lot like "let's be nice in our documents while we keep people excluded from participating" to me.
> 
> No, not at all.    I think I was clear to say they are different topics.  I did not say anything like you suggested, that is:
> 
>    "let's be nice in our documents while we keep people excluded from participating"

Just for clarification: I didn't mean that *you* (or, for instance, 
anybody) were implying that.

What I meant is that if the issue of language is associated with 
improving inclusiveness, and there's no comprehensive approach to try to 
tackle the problem, it comes across like that.

As suggested by others, one possible way out is to remove any references 
to inclusiveness and diversity when pursuing such work, and simply 
pursue it as "tackling possibly-offensive language".

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492