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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Dear Mr Daley,
At 12:24 PM 14-02-2021, Jay Daley wrote:
>Having wealthy, credentialed, [removed] people take the issue of 
>diversity and inclusivity seriously enough to try to explicitly and 
>publicly change their behaviours is to me neither patronising nor 
>disempowering, but rather it is both heartening and solidarity 
>building.  The alternative of wealthy, credentialed, [removed] 
>people not wishing to do that makes me wary that either they are 
>racist, or sympathise with racists, or seek to diminish or ignore 
>the historic impact of racism.  To use modern terminology, the 
>difference is between feeling "safe" and "unsafe".
>
>This wariness directly affects participation - if there is a 
>decision to be made on where to direct resources then (on average) 
>the "unsafe" organisation loses out.

How does the wariness affect IETF participation?

Is the (current) IETF viewed as an "unsafe" organisation?

What is your opinion about 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/edu-team/aXsNAGUHJe_nPGKxebRS7GdCXzU/

Regards,
S. Moonesamy