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

[Jay Daley <[e-mail]>]

> On 15/02/2021, at 5:15 PM, S Moonesamy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Mr Daley,
> At 12:24 PM 14-02-2021, Jay Daley wrote:
>> Having wealthy, credentialed, [removed]

I notice that you’ve removed the word "white" without explaining why and yet by doing so, implying that I used it inappropriately.  You should be aware that actions like that come across to me as a manipulative trick and generally I would not respond to such a message.  However, as you may not be aware of that reaction, I will respond below.

>> people take the issue of diversity and inclusivity seriously enough to try to explicitly and publicly change their behaviours is to me neither patronising nor disempowering, but rather it is both heartening and solidarity building.  The alternative of wealthy, credentialed, [removed] people not wishing to do that makes me wary that either they are racist, or sympathise with racists, or seek to diminish or ignore the historic impact of racism.  To use modern terminology, the difference is between feeling "safe" and "unsafe".
>> 
>> This wariness directly affects participation - if there is a decision to be made on where to direct resources then (on average) the "unsafe" organisation loses out.
> 
> How does the wariness affect IETF participation?

As explained above - where a decision needs to be made on how to allocate scarce resources, "unsafe" organisations lose out.

> 
> Is the (current) IETF viewed as an "unsafe" organisation?

I don’t know.  I also don’t know if anyone has conducted the necessary level of outreach to answer that.

> 
> What is your opinion about https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/edu-team/aXsNAGUHJe_nPGKxebRS7GdCXzU/

Measurement and publication of data is an important mechanism in this context.

Jay

> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy 
> -- 
> Gendispatch mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch
> 

-- 
Jay Daley
IETF Executive Director
[e-mail]