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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 26/7/20 10:38, Salz, Rich wrote:
[...]
> 
> The point is not to avoid **any** word that could offend someone.  It is 
> about being open and adaptable, so that when a group comes forward we 
> try to accommodate them.  And we make it clear, by our actions, that we 
> are willing to listen and be inclusive.

FWIW, I find the effort worthwhile. That said, there's a long way from 
using more inclusive language to being inclusive.

It would seem to me that only specific aspects of inclusiveness, and 
only specific dimensions of diversity are considered.

For instance, whenever we have had discussions on e.g. where to hold 
meetings such that the IETF is more inclusive, the usual answer is that 
that's not necessarily a goal, and that meetings should happen where 
most of the attendees come from. -- which talks a lot about protecting 
the status quo rather than about being more inclusive.

It also puzzles me a bit when the actions that are meant to be more 
inclusive do not include the most affected folks in the decisions/actions.

Maybe if we need to "be willing to listen" (to the "outside"), it's 
probably because we're not being very inclusive in the first place?

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