Re: IESG Statement On Oppressive or Exclusionary Language

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Actually I’d like to suggest something different before anyone else responds, and that is to put this thread and the other related threads to the side for now. We had a productive if short discussion of draft-knodel-terminology-03 in the GENDISPATCH session last week. The authors have some action items, and there is likely to be further discussion of this topic at a future GENDISPATCH interim. As I said at the mic during the session, email discussion on this topic does not seem to be helping the discussion progress. Let’s give it a rest and those interested in the topic can reconvene when the GENDISPATCH interim gets scheduled.

Alissa


> On Aug 7, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Viktor,
> 
> On 08-Aug-20 07:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> ....
>> So the proposed reforms are not an
>> objective net good.
>> 
>> The proposed cultural revolution...
> 
> I have no idea what you are referring to. All I have seen is an IESG statement including the words:
> 
>>> The IESG looks forward to hearing more from the community, engaging in 
>>> those discussions, and helping to develop a framework for handling this 
>>> issue going forward.
> 
> Please explain how that amounts to "proposed reforms" or "proposed cultural revolution".
> 
> Regards
>   Brian
>