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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 12/2/21 21:53, Stephen Farrell 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. 

That is, indeed, probably the biggest part of it.

At times there are other things more or less related with that:
e.g., from a practical point of view, the experience you get when 
participating may depend a lot on your affiliation -- for numerous reasons.

Also, the ability to spend time and money tends to also have an effect 
on your opportunities to socialize your work and socialize yourself. -- 
this means that different folks, with the same skills and abilities, 
might be able to get different things from the time they invest.  The 
ability to e.g. regularly participate in person may e.g. at times 
somehow (and somewhat) mitigate the drawbacks of participating from 
under-represented organizations.



> 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.

Fully agreed.

Ironically, the pandemic, together with the availability of a fee waiver 
(kudos to whoever was involved in such decision), probably made much 
more for participation fairness than most discussions we have had on the 
topic.

In that respect, I applaud the effort pursued in 
draft-kuehlewind-shmoo-remote-fee.

It would seem to me that the same idea could be extrapolated to 
in-person meetings, and that the Internet Society could be of help here 
(if there's a will to do so).

(There used to be an "IETF fellowship" program run by the Internet 
Society, which IMO was rather flawed in how it was run. However, my 
understanding is that rather than fixing it, it was discontinued).


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