Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs

[Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]>]

Paul

"The arguments so far (from you and John Levine) have beenthat since HRPC didn’t attain world peace anduniversal human rights, it should be closed down."
I can see where John suggested that.
But where did I suggest or endorse that idea?
I suspect you're confusing skepticism for stifling dissent.And that you're confusing me with Eliot Lear.
(on my mail agent behaviour, I'm suspecting the mail agent.)
L. 
Lloyd Wood [e-mail] http://about.me/lloydwood 

      From: Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>
 To: Lloyd Wood <[e-mail]> 
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
 Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018, 23:38
 Subject: Re: why exactly is HRPC for, was Diversity and offensive terminology in RFCs
   


> On Sep 21, 2018, at 07:01, Lloyd Wood <lloyd.wood=[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Niels,
> 
> you are surprised about this conversation here and now on HPRC,
> despite you being the very person who initiated this conversation
> introducing the topic of HPRC to the main list?

Niels introduced a topic from HPRC that he thought warranted discussion outside of HPRC. Since HPRC per definition is about ALL of IETF considering the impact of IETF protocols on human rights, that is appropriate and expected output of the group.

What Niels was surprised about was some people’s reaction to close down HPRC, and I concur with Niels’ surprise. The arguments so far (from you and John Levine) have been that since HRPC didn’t attain world peace and universal human rights, it should be closed down. It fails to understand the groups goal. If that kind of measuring is used, the Security Area and IPv6 groups should have been closed down years ago.

> And you complain
> about someone expressing a contrary and dissenting position while
> emailing from **digitaldissidents**.org? Irony much?

Niels is not complaining, you are. And this attack doesn’t belong on this list.

> (I'd also like to know why my replies to you aren't cc'ing the
> list by default; that does look like an attempt to stifle debate,
> but I don't see the expected Reply-To: in headers.)

And now you seem to imply the [e-mail] list settings are somehow Niels’ fault. If you want to complain about these, a new thread devoid of HRPC discussion, just discussions this particular’s list settings would be the appropriate way to raise this as an issue to discuss.

> remember: social justice warriors have never been to war.

You are trying to prove that you “mastered”  flame baiting?

I guess if anything, you showed that IETF has a lot of work to do to become more inclusive and considerate, and if we really need to discuss whether HRPC should be closed down or not (I don’t think we do) than your behavior shows the need to keep it open.

Paul