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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Alissa,
On 16-Feb-21 04:21, Alissa Cooper wrote:
...> (3) Regarding diversity and inclusion, there is so much more work to do, and there are many places in the IETF constellation where components of that work can be done: WGs, EMODIR, the NomCom, the LLC, the IAB. Detailed proposals for specific pieces of work or new programs or ideas targeting any or multiple of these bodies are welcome, and a comprehensive analysis as a baseline is a great idea. It is disheartening, though, to see claims that nothing has been been done to increase diversity and inclusion in the IETF, because the many volunteers and staff who have put time and energy into the existing initiatives deserve credit for their work. The expanded and revamped newcomers program, the consensus publication of RFC 8719 and RFC 7776, the expansion of the systers networking events, the ANRP and ANRW, and a couple of travel/attendance assistance programs that were in the works for 2020 pre-pandemic are all examples of institution-level initiatives. These complement many other individual initiatives: regional and local mailing lists, remote hubs, selection of diverse WG chairs (which I have tried to make a priority personally), training for NomCom members, etc. Each of these on their own is small and together they do not amount to nearly enough, but we should acknowledge that they exist.

Yes, I think that absolutely right, but in a sense it's been an unannounced program, and it seems to be time to make it explicit.

Regards
    Brian