Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 03 March 2021 02:07 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B7B3A1682 for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:07:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykRJStqPcvCx for <gendispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE53C3A1681 for <gendispatch@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 18:07:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:65ed:1380:287f:86d0] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:65ed:1380:287f:86d0]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37436280477; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 02:07:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Cc: GENDISPATCH List <gendispatch@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
References: <37eecb9b-f0eb-e21c-b162-b1f0339e4981@si6networks.com> <AM0PR08MB37168C83CF19A3CDFEF15FD8FA809@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <1fdfebbf-58ab-0f18-da53-ec06d9953c5f@gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6-AGMzgeyzxRHyGCtgSMWxQt+hh-mDn49XAYT7NbC0dg@mail.gmail.com> <AM0PR08MB37163BD6FC65DBF03D1ABC05FA9F9@AM0PR08MB3716.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> <1384196287.69381.1614159584429@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <da40aafd-105e-e9f8-977e-11c880ff9cd1@huitema.net> <LO2P265MB0573CCBC5E8408F184DE110FC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <DM6PR02MB692403DEE25C3ACD21854A7BC39E9@DM6PR02MB6924.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <CAMm+LwhPKXfXPDWnYROjpndLwi-7KNTNkUxpeDAwv-cLVNKm9g@mail.gmail.com> <aae1f908-531b-d166-f79a-7e9f37fb2232@gont.com.ar> <5fec09e1-38d8-9e46-4d27-f10f28ac4db2@lounge.org> <c5293efb-d7b8-9541-15bc-1df30dd2b262@network-heretics.com> <716b6e9a-bdd2-d864-8931-cdd67cb3d182@huitema.net> <CAMm+LwhqA7sqfF27fxOj7khyQcF8WSzKQ5obvWqnoANxyefUMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <efc9dbbd-015e-f88f-68bb-f8e6e3e785cb@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 23:07:20 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+LwhqA7sqfF27fxOj7khyQcF8WSzKQ5obvWqnoANxyefUMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gendispatch/g9imS8VAniTPofifH0p3mSsgY_c>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
X-BeenThere: gendispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <gendispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gendispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:gendispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gendispatch>, <mailto:gendispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 02:07:36 -0000

On 2/3/21 18:53, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
[...]
>>
>>     I think the lesson for IETF and TERM there is "be very cautious
>>     about creating new weapons that can be used to attack
>>     opponents".   Because people can and will use such weapons for
>>     purely political ends, e.g. to demonize the people who are
>>     promoting ideas that the attackers believe will harm their
>>     interests.   It's often easier to attack people personally than to
>>     attack their technical contributions, and we want to be very
>>     careful about legitimizing such attacks. 
> 
[...]
> 
> The issue is not the fact that it is a legitimate gesture with a 
> widespread legitimate use. What creates an issue is that a particular 
> group of people decided to subvert that meaning.

Are you proposing to abolish religion, religious institutions, national 
symbols such as flags, military organizations, governments, etc., too?

It is very hard for me to think about one of those that has not been 
used to or associated with atrocities.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492