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

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

Strange assumptions in this thread that as a community we can’t choose to
do *all* of the things that would lead to more diversity, just because we
are focussing on one, very achievable goal with this carefully crafted and
thoroughly discussed action (eg the group on inclusive terminology).

I’m here— and many of us are ready— to support all of these other ideas,
too.

-M


On Friday, February 12, 2021, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> I think Fernando is spot on here:
>
> On 12/02/2021 21:24, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
>> As a hint, this work: draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee does, IMO, more
>> for many axis of inclusiveness than any specific recommnendation on
>> language.
>>
>
> It's always seemed to me that the main unfair advantage we
> who can choose to engage with the IETF enjoy is the time and
> money to spend the money and time required to meaningfully
> participate. I don't know how to fix that but I do think that
> draft from Mirja, Jon and Rich comes the closest I've seen to
> attempting to address that usefully.
>
> More of the same would be great.
>
> Cheers,
> S.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780