Re: USA dominion: Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 02:15:50PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >    The question i have is more about who makes the decision. From
>     what you are saying it sounds as if its fine if just the interested
>     small set of people who are vocal enough chiming into the issue
>     should be the ones making the decision.
> 
> I am sorry if I was not clear, but I do not see that I said anything about who makes the decision.  I thought it was obvious, given the context, that we follow normal IETF decision-making procedures.

And i was implying tht the normal process may not be a good choice, because
it's basically built around benefitting those who show up, whereas in this
case we should figure out how to achieve the best results for those who read
RFCs, and i don't think that tht is taken enough into consideration.

For example, one could create a questionaire about language used in RFCs
and pass that to all ISOC chapters for feedback, and then analyze that feedback.

Just saying...

> >  My argument is that that
>     group has not enough diversity to represent the diversity of the
>     target audience of RFCs across the globe.
> 
> We have that problem overall, don't we?  (Rhetorical question: yes we do.)  We can address what we think is problematic, and as more communities tell us of more things, we can address them too (or not, as the IETF decides to do).

Most what comes out of IETF can be ignored by those who don't care.
When like in this case it impacts everybody, and when as i claim
there may even be fear to speak out against it, and when furthermore
it would be prudent to show diversity was observed in decision making,
then business as usual may not be the right approach.
> 
> > As i proposed, i would be happy if we first agreed on what the goal is
> 
> Okay.  I like the IESG statement.  I have no useful feedback on what you proposed.

Which IESG statement ?

Cheers
    Toerless