Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 25 February 2021 21:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD853A0BD5 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:35:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TF7RLo3fi0m for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C7653A0BD3 for <>; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 13:35:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:a449:5f08:346f:44bd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5132B28062B; Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:35:11 +0000 (UTC)
To: Keith Moore <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <LO2P265MB0573CCBC5E8408F184DE110FC29E9@LO2P265MB0573.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 18:22:09 -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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Area Dispatch <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2021 21:35:17 -0000

On 25/2/21 18:06, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 2/25/21 12:58 PM, STARK, BARBARA H wrote:
>> The main problem that I, personally, see driving a need for the TERM 
>> WG is that many companies (mostly from one region) have told their 
>> employees not to use certain terms in any document or code they are 
>> associated with. Given the momentum of this movement and speed at 
>> which it is spreading to many of the companies employing IETF 
>> participants, if IETF does not address the problem ASAP, this could 
>> make it difficult for employees of these companies to actively 
>> participate. This will primarily impact a specific region/country and 
>> people employed by large companies in that region and would be 
>> independent of the race, culture, or gender of the participants.
> I'm not following this.   Are you saying that IETF will be expected to 
> bring its notion of acceptable vocabulary in line with those of some 
> large companies that are mostly from one region so that those companies' 
> employees are not at risk of violating their employers' policies if they 
> participate in IETF?   Or are you saying that document authors/editors 
> who work for such companies will be constrained by IETF to violate their 
> employers' policies if IETF doesn't adopt its own policy (which might be 
> different from the policies of those companies)?

My next question would be: if folks from X country require e.g. that 
people dress in a certain way (for religious purposes, or whatever), 
since otherwise they wouldn't be able to contribute... what would be the 
IETFs take on this?

Or, let me ask a different question: is the IETF to be taken as a global 

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492