Re: [Gendispatch] Diversity and Inclusiveness in the IETF

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

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 
organization?

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